Word count:27228
deconstructing the myth of science part three. Yes, there's more. Oh, yes, so much more. Do not underestimate how deep this topic of science says, I'm telling you, you could spend easily 500 hours, 1000 hours, just contemplating the nature of what science is. And this would be time well spent. Most people don't understand that such a such a thing is possible. Now, a couple of warnings before we really get into it. Warning number one is that I just want to make it very clear that you have to be careful here with deconstructing science, because it is possible for some devils to come in and to use these points that I'm making, I'm making very powerful points about the nature of science. And in a sense, it does weaken science. It takes science off its pedestal that it's been placed upon in our culture and society. Now. This is a double edged sword. Because anybody who's at the level of below science, the pre rational level can use these points. This is like ammunition for the enemies of science. And this can be taken as a license by the ego mind to start to believe any kind of nonsense, science denial and conspiracy theories. That is obviously not what I'm suggesting you do. This set of episodes, this whole series, this whole endeavor of deconstruction is not to be used by the ego as licensed to believe whatever is convenient to its survival, or to prop up and bolster its own personal biases, and pet theories and ideologies. So be careful about that. I'm sensing that many people can fall into this trap. And that's why I understand why scientifically minded people and rationally minded people can be worried about what I'm doing here, this project of deconstruction, because in their mind, they can see it as Oh, no, he's giving ammo to our enemies. And this is dangerous. And of course, that's right. It is in a sense, dangerous. But also, how else can we make progress by being critical of our own worldviews? You see, so we're sort of damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't, yes, to make intellectual progress requires intellectual integrity. A person who comes in here without any intellectual integrity and wants to just use these points, like if a creationist gets a hold of these points, or if some religious fundamentalist, or if some conspiracy theorist or some flat earther, or some, you know, anti Vaxxer, or whatever gets a hold of these points that I'm making, they will, their ego mind will try to use this to justify their silly worldview. But that's not what we're doing here. Because, of course, deconstruction, you have to be careful with deconstruction. When you're deconstructing worldviews, you have to be very even handed about it. You can't just deconstruct the worldviews you don't like. You have to deconstruct precisely your own worldview. So if you're a Christian, you have to not deconstruct science, you have to first deconstruct Christianity, then you can move on to deconstructing science. If you're a Muslim, first, deconstruct Islam, then move on to deconstructing science. But if you're rationally minded, if he is the minded person, then you don't need to deconstruct religion too much, you already understand the limits of religion. Great, but now you get to the work of deconstructing science, you see, and in the end, in this way, you're going to deconstruct everything. Now, of course, critics of what I'm doing will say, well, Leo, but what about deconstructing the actualized.org philosophy? What about that? See, you're deconstructing everything but then you're not deconstructing the actualized. Org philosophy. Which of course is to misunderstand what actualize that org is about actualize that org is not a philosophy. It is not an ideology. It's something different. It is the deconstruction of the entire mind of every world you have Everything, you're not leaving any special privilege for your own pet theories and ideas, you deconstruct those two, you see, and then what remains is nothing. You even get to the point where you deconstruct deconstruction. And you're left with nothing, you're left with freedom, the liberation of your own mind. You see how this works? Again, that's not an ideology, you have to actually do it, there's a difference between creating an ideology of deconstruction versus actually deconstructing everything, including your own deconstruction, and not being beholden to any kind of ideology, even the ideology of deconstruction. So you have to be careful not to turn deconstruction itself into some sort of new method or dogma. You see, in a sense, any epistemic method you use is going to be finite, partial relative bias and incomplete. So the trick here is how do we free our mind of all possible methods, of which science is just one? See? Now another point I need to make here is that it might sound like I'm being overly negative here about scientists and academics, I might be portraying them all as idiots, or fools. This is not the case. Of course, there are very good scientists in the world. Not all scientists are materialist hacks. Not all scientist, deny truth, not all scientists deny the importance of philosophy and metaphysics and epistemology. There are some really high quality visionary scientists out there that are post rational, that understand the things that I'm saying. And if you're one of those a great I want to encourage you even more, see, I'm with you, I'm not trying to undermine you, I'm trying to take what you've been doing, even to a deeper level, there are deeper levels that you have not yet understood, that I can show you. And then, of course, our goal here is to move all the scientists who are the materialist tax, and who are just strictly stuck in rationalism and realism and materialism is to move them up to this sort of post rational stage of science that you are at if you're a high quality scientist. So of course, good scientists do exist, but you have to understand that they're, they're quite rare. They are the exception, not the rule. And they tend not to be very vocal, they tend not to be the popular ones you don't really know about them. The scientists that you do know about are usually the ones who are fitting into the materialist mainstream paradigm, the realist paradigm, there are scientists who are idealists, and even there are awakened scientists. And there are scientists who are mystics, like they do exist, but you're not going to hear about them. So just understand how this works. In a sense, this is sort of a marketing problem here. Right? Because for a scientist to become really well known and to receive awards, and to have a lot of status and reputation within the cultural zeitgeist, that scientist, how does the scientists gain that kind of notoriety through the institutions of science and academia. But of course, if those institutions of science and academia are all locked into the materialist paradigm, then they're not going to allow any kind of scientists beyond that, to gain notoriety through them, they're not going to grant status. To such people, the only people they'll grant status to are those who are loyal to their paradigm. The best materialists, the best realist, the best rationalist. And so that is the case. Right? So don't expect to see some visionary mystic scientists coming out of MIT or Caltech, you're not going to see that. That's not possible. They won't allow that. There could be independent scientists, but how does an independent scientist become really popular and successful that that's difficult to do? Again, this is sort of a marketing and a business problem, more than it is really a problem of science. But of course, it does become a problem of science because this holds science back a great deal. Because most people in the mainstream what they consider to be science is simply that which is coming out of Caltech and MIT, which is rubber stamped by Caltech and by MIT. But of course, there's no reason why science should be limited to that. Those are just a few institutions. You see, and you can do great science outside of institutions. In fact, today, it's almost necessary that if you want to do cutting edge science, you have to be outside of these institutions. Also, of course, I am not disk urging you from studying science. Like I said, at the very beginning, I love science. I study a lot of science in my life. And I will continue to study science. I read websites about new scientific news. I'm interested in new scientific discoveries, whether it's within particle physics, or within cosmology, or a straw Astronomy, or within, you know, space exploration, there's a lot of amazing stuff that we can discover using conventional materials science, right? So just because materialism is false, that doesn't mean that all of the science done by materialist scientists, is automatically to be dismissed, and to like to not be interested in it, you should still be interested in it, there's a lot that you can learn. Right? It's just that there's something beyond that as well. So don't, don't become too ideological about this. Don't develop this sort of chip on your shoulder about science, just recognize its limits. That's all we're talking about. All right. Now, let's get into some of the main points. So the first main point here of this episode, is that science is very intimately tied in with language, much more so than most people realize, including scientists and academics themselves. So really, consider this profound point, that it's actually impossible to do science without language. It's impossible to do current modern science without language. The to go hand in hand. Science is a linguistic scheme. And any kind of limitations that are inherent to language itself, will creep their way into science and become limitations of science. This is something that many people don't take seriously enough. And the study of the trickeries and nuances of language. This is a deep field, there's an entire field of philosophy called philosophy of language. And it became very prominent and popular in the last 100 years. And even in the last seven years, basically, what philosophers throughout most of human history before the last century, most philosophies took language, most philosophers sorry, took language for granted. They just sort of assumed that language just is a given. It's just a subjective system that we have. There's nothing particularly tricky about language. And we can just use language, because, you know, philosophical questions, questions about the nature of reality, of course, they're, they're framed in language, right? Like, when you ask the question, like, where did humans come from? That's a linguistic activity that you're doing? Or like, what is matter made out of? That's a linguistic question. Or like, what existed before the Big Bang? You see, that's a linguistic sort of question. And you might even ask a question like, What is the nature of a unicorn? What is a unicorn? You would say, well, a unicorn is an imaginary creature, it doesn't really exist. Okay. But what is that? Is there a reality to imaginary objects, like unicorns, and flying spaghetti, monsters, and so forth? See, and so what philosophers sort of to discover around the turn of the last century is that language is much more tricky than we ever thought, and that we can use language to trap ourselves. Sometimes we can ask questions with our language that might be meaningless. Or the problem might be a linguistic problem more than it is a physical or material problem. And sure enough, of course, these problems do exist within language. Sometimes you can frame questions in ways which the questions make no sense, or they don't actually have an answer. And in fact, one of the mistakes many scientists make is they think that well, Leo, all of the philosophical profound questions that you're you know, you're interested in, like questions like, What is existence? Or what happened before the big bang or stuff like that of this nature? That that these sorts of questions they don't even have answers because they're just it's just a linguistic game. It's just a language game. You know, when you say that reality is an illusion. Oh, that's just a language game. Is it or maybe when you say that it's just a language game that itself is the game. And that itself is the illusion. So you have to be very careful here with how you're using language. All of science hinges upon labels and categories, which come with language. And of course, language is not a fixed static thing that was given to us eons ago, language is always evolving. As science evolves, language evolves. As technology evolves, language evolves, we develop new labels, new categories. But these labels and categories we create, they're not just simply labels and categories, you have to understand how powerful language is. language plays a constructive role. It's not merely descriptive. It's not merely that we find, you know, a rabbit out in the wilderness and we say, Oh, well, we'll call that thing a rabbit. And we find a kangaroo and say, Oh, well, we'll just call that a kangaroo, and doesn't really matter. We could switch the labels, you know, we could call a rabbit, a kangaroo. And we could call a kangaroo a rabbit, and it wouldn't make any difference. And, and that's all there is to it. No, no, language is much, much, much more tricky than that. Language is an entire vast, complex network of meanings. And these meanings, many of them are subconscious. When you say A, even a simple word, like a rabbit, or a kangaroo, or time or space, or a table or a person. Usually, in ordinary parlance, you know, as laymen, we we say these words, and we don't think very much about them. We just assume that these objects exist, that they're Givens that they're not constructed by our minds. And that language doesn't play a constructive role, but it does see, behind every even simple word, even a word such as rabbit, what does rabbit really mean? You might think you know what rabbit means. But no two people on this planet have exactly the same understanding of what a rabbit is. And every word comes with implicit latent hidden metaphysical baggage. The words and categories we use, to talk about reality, come with metaphysical baggage with assumptions, and baked in projections and expectations of what we think reality is, and many of these are not deeply questioned or exact examined by science, they're just taken for granted. We just assume that there is such a thing as a rabbit, or the sun, or energy, or matter or time or the body or death. We take these words as though they're just physical objects out there. And we're just labeling them. But what if that's not the case? What if our minds are entangled with language such that they can never be disentangled? And what if our understanding of reality and our doing of science is entangled with language and with our mind, such that the entire mechanism is functioning in a very complicated manner? Where it's very difficult to make sense of really what comes first reality, language mind? And what creates what is language creating the mind and the mind creating reality? Or is reality creating language and reality is creating the mind. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem here. And of course, the ultimate problem with language is that language is just one, one mode of understanding reality and interfacing with reality. Notice that it's possible to experience reality without any language whatsoever. Now, it's difficult for most people, because most people don't meditate so their minds are always in monkey mind mode, as the Buddhists call it. Your mind is always thinking thoughts and so it's very difficult for you to experience a period of no language at all. To experience reality without any language, without any linguistic projections or augmentations. See, language works like an augmented reality system. Everything is being overlaid and projected upon raw phenomenon, with our mind and with language and The problem is that today's scientists, none of them have been taught meditation, none of them know how to shut off their mind for the most part. And so they just assumed that the only way to approach reality is through language. But that's not true at all. That's just how your culture has been approaching reality. There might be non linguistic ways of approaching reality. And those need to be taken seriously. If you're going to be insisting that language is the one true right way to understand reality. First of all, remember that needs to be scientifically validated, you don't know that that's true. That's just an assumption. For you to know that that's true, you'd have to experiment with language. And then you'd have to also experiment with non linguistic modalities to determine whether language is actually the best one. You can't just start off by assuming Well, language is the best one, because language is just all that I've been using my whole life. But see, how can you even test the non linguistic modalities? When you don't even know how to shut off your mind? For five seconds? You're always having thoughts and thoughts are always language. You see, you see how tricky this is? If you're a scientist, I have a very simple, very simple experiment for you. If you're a serious scientist, my challenge to you is to reach a point in your own cognitive development, where you're able to experience reality for one minute, one whole minute, without any linguistic stuff going on inside your head. No words. No Labels, no categories. What would that be? Like? You say, Oh, well, yeah, Leo, I can do that. First of all, notice that you can't do that. You're incapable of doing that. You can't shut off your mind for longer than five seconds, let alone a minute. It'll take you years of work to get to a point where you can shut off your mind for longer than a minute. And then you say, Oh, well, yeah. But if I even if I did, that won't be the point. Leo. Yeah, I could, I could do that. But then what's the point of that? I mean, nothing will change. Ah, that's an assumption. That's an assumption, you don't know that nothing will change, maybe something very significant will change. And the only way you can know is by doing the experiment. That's the spirit of science, as we talked about, in part one, remember. So you see, we can already clearly see how much your own mind is entangled with science and your understanding of reality. Because if your mind is always stuck in thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking, thinking languaging languaging languaging languaging. And you are you can't even shut that off for one minute. How can you say that you are truly objectively understanding reality. Clearly, you're stuck in a linguistic mode. And there are other modes. You see, the problem with language is that it's inherently dualistic. It separates reality into categories and into dualities. So you say that there's existence and non existence, there's energy and there's matter. There's hot and there's cold, there's big and they're small. There's a cat and there's a non cat. There's a planet and there's a non planet. There's full space, and there's empty space. There's numbers, and there's non numbers. There's humans, there's nonhumans, there's intelligent beings, and there's non intelligent beings, and so forth. And so this is what science is basically, modern science is this dualistic activity of, of carving up reality into these dualities. That's a methodological bias of science. And science is not aware that it's really doing this and doesn't see that this is a problem, that it could be a problem. If thinks that this is just how reality is and we're just observing reality. But what if the mind is projecting these dualities onto nature, that, in fact, is non dual to begin with? You see, that's going to bias your understanding of reality, because you're projecting stuff upon reality without recognizing that you're doing so. Reality will appear ill will appear dualistic to you because that's what you're projecting upon it. When in fact, reality is non dualistic, without your projections. See, to know more about these dualistic categories, go check out my three part series. It's a very important series that I shot called Understanding duality part one, part two, part three, I specifically talk about all of these tricky issues that relate to duality in these categories I. In part two, I specifically address all of the scientific dualities, which holds scientists back from really understanding the stuff that they're studying. Virtually every scientist in every university around the world today is stuck in a dualistic mode. And their entire field is carved up into these various dualities, and they take these dualities for granted as objective without recognizing that they are mind created. This is a big problem. You have to every single word or label that you use when investigating reality has to be deeply questioned and contemplated. For example, here's a list of some of these terms and labels. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's 1000s of them. But here's a few experience. Scientists and rationally minded people will use the word experience as though they understand what experience is. They've never seriously contemplated what experience means. How about the term reality, we use the word reality without any understanding of what reality is, without contemplating it deeply. Related closely to that one is existence. Existence. We use that word as though we know what that means. A life we use that word, as if we know what that means, without any deep contemplation of what life is. Human, what is human? See, Science uses this word, but science never deeply questions what a human is. How about the word male or female? We use these words as though we know what these are. Most scientists believe that male and female are just objective facts that we get from DNA. But there's nothing in the DNA that says male or female in it. You say all yellow, yellow, there is a male is is someone with an X Y chromosome and a female has an XX chromosome. That's just an objective scientific fact. No, it isn't. It's not a fact at all. It's your mind who says that x x is female and X, Y is male. That's your mind saying that the DNA doesn't say that. In fact, the notion of a chromosome is something your mind also made up. There's no such thing as a chromosome. See, you have to be very careful. These things are so taken for granted by science as just being objectively real. They aren't. They're constructions and projections of the mind. How about the term fact? People use the word fact so cavalierly, as if fact is just a fact. But of course, it's not a fact. How do you know what is? It isn't a fact? What does it mean for something to be a fact? And what does it mean for something to not be a fact? This, this requires deep, profound philosophical questioning. You can't just say, Oh, well, Leo, those are philosophical concerns that they it doesn't matter to science. Science doesn't care what a fact is, there isn't we just, it's just it's just obvious. No, nothing, nothing is obvious. None of these words or terms is obvious. Another one is rational. People throw this word around, rational or logical they throw around this word as if they have ever contemplated what that even means. What does rational mean? Rational according to whom? Physical is another one. People talk about physical or material as though they know what that word means. What does it mean to say that my body is physical or material and that a unicorn is non physical? What does that mean? You have no idea I want you to recognize that you have never seriously questioned any of these words, and you do not know what any of them mean. Even if you're an academic, even if you're a scientist, I don't care if you have a Nobel Prize. If you're a Nobel Prize winning scientist, physicist from MIT, I guarantee you, you have no idea what the word physical means. That's the depth of our problem here. Not to mention, if you're just some ordinary Joe Schmo on YouTube watching a video, right? This problem persists all throughout society doesn't matter how how smart you are, how high your IQ is, how many books you've read, you still don't know what physical means. You don't know what experience means. You don't know what rational means. How about the word cause? We use this word cause cause and effect. That's another duality that science just takes for granted. But what is a cause? Really? What does it mean to cause something? That's a classic philosophical problem very challenging. All these questions are deep questions, you can spend hundreds of hours contemplating every single one of these terms. And it's also very easy to get lost in your mind. You might say, well, Leo, but But it gets us nowhere to contemplate these. It could get you nowhere, or it could get you somewhere, don't assume it'll get you nowhere. If it was guaranteed to get you nowhere, I wouldn't be talking about it. I only talk about practical things. How about of course, the word science. People use the word science so casually as if they have any idea what that word means. Even scientists, scientists call themselves scientists, but they don't know what a scientist is. What is a scientist? What does it mean to do science? I mean, this last three episodes where I've been talking for, you know, probably close to 10 hours now about the nature of science. I mean, all we're doing here is we're really questioning and contemplating a single thing, what is science? And look how difficult it is look at all the problems that have come out metaphysical, epistemic methodological, about science, look at all the assumptions, the hidden assumptions that we've had about science, look at all the ways we could misconceived science and do science wrong. Look at all the ways in which we can have different versions of science. How do we adjudicate between different ones, you see how challenging it is to define what science is. And this is very practical. This is not merely a word game that we're playing here. Because when we're communicating with each other, we're using all these words. So it's very easy to dismiss these things that I'm talking about. It's all legal, it's just all a word game, it doesn't really matter. You're just talking about some sort of semantic definitions. It's nothing of consequence. But your entire life is made up of semantics. Whether you're a scientist or a layman, if you're a scientist, you're using technical terms all the time, in your research papers, these technical terms infect your mind and determine how you think about reality. You literally think of reality in terms of energy, matter, numbers, quantities, vectors, forces, all of these complicated terms that you don't fully understand, and that you just take for granted as given. But even if you're an ordinary person, you're playing language games all the time, your entire life is a language game. See, when you're an argument, and you're saying someone is, is wrong or correct, something is true or false, or you're saying that person is bad, or this person is good, or that person is evil, or whatever. These are all language games, even when you think about your own death. That itself is a language game. Because death, what is the word death even mean? You don't know what death means? You think you do, but you have no idea what death is or what it means. This affects your emotional system. This is not a purely intellectual exercise, your entire emotional system, your motivational system, what your whole value system is in life, what you do in your life, all of that is connected to how you use language, you're completely embedded in language, whether you're a scientist, an academic or just a layman, ordinary person, and are completely non philosophical. You can't escape the problems of philosophy just by saying that you don't care about philosophy or that philosophy is just a language game. The next point is that the map is not the territory. So this is related to this idea of language that we've been talking about. But one of the biggest mistakes that scientists make today is that they are so wrapped up in symbolic understanding of nature or reality, that they confuse their maps, and symbolic representations of reality with reality itself. This is the trap called mistaking the map for the territory. This is a huge trap, I will have a whole separate episode just about this one idea that the map is not the territory. There is a really powerful quote from why it would small on this topic. And he says, the better the model, the bigger the problem. The better the model, the bigger the problem. Remember this quote, for the rest of your life, this will be crucial for you to to unravel the nature of reality. Because you see, science really is in the business of creating models of nature of representing nature, which means you've got nature, and then you've got to read presentation or copy of it. So science is sort of making copies of nature, these copies, it's making our oversimplifications within a symbolic realm, and scientists assume that this is the only way in which we can understand reality is by making copies of it, simplifying it using symbols, whether it's mathematics or English language, or what are the other kinds of models, you know, it could be sort of a ball and stick a model of a molecule in chemistry. But basically, all of modern science is just models. And these models, of course, are upgraded every year, every decade, every century, we develop new and better models, and they become more and more accurate in a sense. And you might say, well, that's great, that means we're getting closer to the truth. But we're not. We're not, no matter how good your model is, your model is never the truth. The truth is the territory itself, not the model. And you might say, well, it doesn't matter, because as long as I can use the model to manipulate reality, that's it. The truth doesn't matter anymore. But it does. It does in ways that you can't even imagine yet. Because you're stuck in this paradigm of modeling everything. And you think that modeling, everything can be modeled. But that's an assumption that's an unscientific assumption. Are you thinking that? What if everything can't be modeled? What if there are things that are true about reality, important things? That you cannot access through modeling? What then? What do you do then? See, the reason that science is such a powerful illusion. And that it's so difficult to deconstruct is that once your models become very, very good, and accurate enough, such that you consider them reality, you forget about reality, you throw reality away, and then you just live within your world of models. And you forget that reality exists independent of models at all. And this becomes extremely dangerous. So this is what the quote means. The better the model, the bigger the problem. As science becomes more accurate, it becomes a greater illusion. People stop caring about anything beyond the pragmatics of the models. Whether it's the scientists or just the layman, they stopped caring. They stopped caring about truth. They stopped caring about any deeper metaphysical issues, any epistemic issues. It just becomes a purely utilitarian activity. And this becomes very, very dangerous. And that's the state of modern materials. 21st century science, it's virtually impossible to even communicate to a modern scientist, the problems of the map is not the territory because they are so lost in their models. And they have to be in order to succeed in their careers and with their work. Because all they're doing every day is working with models. That to them. The territory has been completely lost, and they can't even conceive in their mind why anybody would care about the territory because all they care about is models. Because when you have a hammer, and all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail Oh, everything looks like it can be hammered down. But of course, a hammer is just one tool, one modality, there are other tools. Science is stuck with this hammer. Presently, it doesn't have to be, it just is right now, it won't be forever. It just is right now that 21st century. So science, one of the biases of scientists and methodology currently, is that science is very biased towards exploring nature and reality through thinking and through symbolism and representation via modeling. So much so that that is the only way it knows how to explore reality. And therefore it doesn't even know that there are other methods. Science does not know of direct methods of investigating reality, separate from thinking, symbolism, and modeling. And when someone like me comes and tries to suggest a direct method, a method which is more direct than experience, or thinking or symbolism. This doesn't compute for people doesn't compute for science, a scientist doesn't understand that a direct method is possible. What do I mean by direct method? I mean that, imagine that there is the territory. What most scientists assume is that, well, Galileo sure there is a territory, but we can't really know the territory because we're, we're just limited humans, we have limited minds, there's no reason why evolution should give us the tools necessary to penetrate to the very substance of reality. So all we can do is we can just study our experiences of reality. That's it. But that's an assumption, you're assuming that you don't know that that's actually true. In fact, what's possible is for you to have direct consciousness of the territory, without bottles without symbols, without thinking, direct access to the absolute truth of reality. That's possible. But you weren't taught methods for how to do this in school, or in university. And none of your academic friends know how to do this. So to them, it says though, it doesn't exist. It does exist. But you have to go outside of the current limited confines of science outside of it. Now, you might say, well, Leo, but but even if these direct methods exist, they're not science. And so I'm not interested in them. But again, remember, as we talked about in part one, and part two, how you're defining science is the whole problem. When you say science is just this and direct experiences is outside of science, that you're assuming that that's okay. You're assuming that's how it should be. But again, that's an assumption. What if there's a problem is that you've, you've drawn your frame your little box too narrowly, if that you need to expand your definition of science to include direct consciousness. You see. But this would require you to break away from the academic herd that you've been brainwashed with. Going beyond that into something new, something that isn't yet considered science, but we'll be in the next century to come. You see, the reason it's so difficult to accept the things that I'm saying here is because I'm saying things that will only be accepted by mainstream culture and academia 100 or 200, or 500 years from now. Like I said, this is advanced stuff. And you might think, well, Leo, you're so arrogant thinking that you can see 200 years into the future. But it's just, it's just obvious. Once you do the work I've done, it's just obvious. It's not a matter of arrogance. You can see precisely the limitations of science 200 years forward, you can see it. But that doesn't mean everyone around you can see it. You see. So if you're looking to others around you to validate what science will look like 200 years from now, they won't, because they can't see it. Very, very few people today can see it. Maybe one and 100 can see it. Probably even less than that. So if you want to, if you want to see what science will look like 200 years from now, you need to break away from the pack from the group think from the institutions and you got to go beyond that. Outside of that, because of course, by definition, something that's going to be 200 years into the future, it's not going to be inside of the current paradigms, it's going to be something radically different and new. And it's going to be unacceptable to many who are entrenched in the current paradigms. Because people at MIT and Caltech who are, you know, who are earning good money and who have a lot of reputation status as world class scientists, they don't want to admit that they're that there's something deeply wrong about their worldview. This would be embarrassing to them as professionals, this would be deeply embarrassing, this would discredit them, they have to go to their graves, believing that their system and way of of looking at reality was correct, and was the best way and that there was nothing better than it. Those people have to die of natural causes, before we are able to advance to this new way of looking at science and reality. So it's not that science is wrong, per se. It's that science. It's that the scientific models are always partial, and highly limited and constrained. And they can never fully encapsulate reality. Remember, as scientists, our mission is to understand reality. Our problem is that we're trying to understand reality by making copies of it models, these models are grossly oversimplified, and they're extremely limited and partial. And so for us to explore and understand more and more of reality, we have to fight constantly argue against our own models that we create, we create a great model, it allows us to manipulate reality a little bit, but then it doesn't allow us to fully manipulate reality or to fully understand reality. And then that model itself becomes the obstacle that we have to break break apart to create a new, better model. And then that model replaces the old model. Now we have to break this one apart, because it's also limited until we reach a new model. But every model we create is always partial, relative and limited, and we always have to break it apart. And this is the whole game of science. Now, here, the mistake that is made by scientists is a well, Leo Yeah, that's the method of science and there's nothing better. Wrong, you're assuming that you don't know that you haven't investigated other methods. That position itself is unscientific, that's a dogma of science. And in the future, that dogma will be broken down. And you can be one of the first people of this generation to break it down. But only if you're willing to go beyond what you've been brainwashed with. If you're really willing to open your mind to question reality, and to question how your mind works, and to question the methodology that you're using, then you can be one of the first but of course, nobody wants to deeply question their methodology. Therefore, very few people are on the cutting edge of science, and can see 200 years ahead. How many models of reality can we invent? into that? It's unlimited. You see the problem here. We could always make better models. The problem though, is that when we create these models, we don't just create the model, then we treat the model as a model, we create the model, the model becomes so effective for our survival. It suits all of our basic utilitarian needs, that we just then say, well, good enough, that's good enough for me, the model is now the truth. And then we actually take this model as the way that reality is, and we're not aware of the limitations that this model places upon our minds, because we don't just have a model, we take the model as reality. And then any limitations within the model become baked into reality. We confuse the limitations our models for the limitations of reality, in fact, reality is unlimited. It's infinite. And all models are limited partial relative and finite. This is a very big problem for scientists. The next problem is what I call the substance problem. The substance problem, science never addresses the question of what anything is. What is matter, what is energy? What is mass, What is gravity? What is a force? What is a particle, what is a wave, what is time? What is space? What is Distance, what is mind? What is a field, what is a number, what is a charge, what is information? What is heat? What is perception? What is it experience, what is consciousness? What is thought? What is an object? What is color? What is life? Science does not answer any of these questions. And there's a reason because it can't. This is very deeply problematic. You see, the way that science works is that it can't actually answer any question of substance. It can't actually tell you what anything is. All that it can do is it can tell you how a thing behaves. So science can't tell you what my hand is made out of science can only tell you how my hand behaves. Under certain conditions. You might say, well, Leo, science can say that the hand is made of cells. Okay, but what is the cell? You're just pushing the, the substance question down one level, when you say the hand is made of cells, okay, it's made of cells. But But what is the cell? You push that push it down one more level? And you say, well, it's made of molecules? Or proteins, let's say, what is the protein? Well, proteins matter molecules. But what is the molecule? Well, that's pushed down one more level, it's made of atoms. Well, what is an atom? Well push it down one more level? It's matter of subatomic particles, protons, neutrons, electrons, so forth. Well, what are those? Well, those made of quarks, push it down lower level, what are those? Well, mana strings, or water strings? Well, there, what is that? Well, it's just some numbers. But what are numbers? Well, numbers are just numbers. What is a number? What's the number? What's the substance of a number? You see, science is constantly playing this game of avoiding the substance question by always offloading it on to somebody else. It's basically one of these games of telephone tag, you know, like you call some giant bureaucracy, and you tell them that oh, you know, my electricity isn't, you know, you call your electric company and you tell them like, hey, my electricity is out. I need you to like to check what's going on. But you know, and the guy on the other end says, well, sorry, Sir, you called the wrong department. I mean, yes, this is the electric company, but you called the billing department, you got to call the actual engineering department, because you're you don't have a billing problem, you have an engineering problem. So then you say, Okay, please transfer me to the engineering department. So they transfer you to the engineering department. And then you talk to them. And they tell you, Well, no, you don't have an engineering problem. That is a that's a, that's a, that's an administrative problem. So they transfer you to the administration department. So you talk to them. And then they say, Well, you don't really have an administration problem. It's a billing problem. They transfer you to the billing department again, and you're going around in circles. This is what science is. Like, if you go into a physics classroom, and I did this when I was when I was young. You know, I had a great physics teacher in high school, I actually really enjoyed physics, but I was really interested in the substance of reality. And, and I noticed that at one point, I noticed that all that we're doing in physics is we're just manipulating variables, and equations, but we're not addressing the root of what anything is. So I would ask like, Well, okay, so what is this thing called a force? In physics, a force is mass times acceleration. But then I would ask, okay, but what is what is acceleration? I don't understand what acceleration is in the physical world. You know, the, my physics teacher would say, well, acceleration is just velocity divided by time. And then I would say, Okay, but what is velocity? Well, velocity is just distance divided by time. Okay, so now, you're defining velocity in terms of distance and time. But what is distance? What? We can't say what distances? Distance is that which is measured by a ruler. But what is a ruler? And what about time? Well, what is time? Well, time is the thing that's measured by a moving head on a clock. But that's motion, you're defining times in terms of the motion of the of the clock. But the whole point of figuring out what time was was to define what distance was, and what velocity was. So it's all circular definitions. You see. No physicist can tell you what maths is, or what matter is, or what energy is or what gravity is, or what a force is, or what a particle is, or what time is or what space is, or what a field is, or what a charge is or what information is. All they can do is they can define one of those terms in terms of other terms that they themselves don't know. It's completely circular. It's a complete game of avoiding the question By playing this game, you create a sense that you understand more than you actually do. See, if physicists were honest, and I came to a physics and I said, What is? What is a force? If the physicist was honest, he'd say, I have no fucking idea what a force is. But see, a physicist can't say that, because it makes them look stupid and not credible. So the physicist has to say, well, it's easy, a force is just mass times acceleration. And acceleration is just velocity over just over over time. And, and time is just whatever Einstein said it was. And then that's the end of the story. And when you push them further, they say, well, we can't say any more. That's just the limits of the human mind, the human mind can't know any better, this is the best we can do. Wrong. Wrong, it's not the best we can do. It's possible to directly know what things are. Without playing this circular game of phone tag, it's possible to actually understand the substance of anything and everything within reality, but not through the methods of physics. And of course, you can see how this is very problematic for physics. Because if what I'm saying is true, this makes physics look rather feeble and limited, which of course, no physicist wants to admit. So the physicist has to deny that what I'm saying is true. Which they will do with all sorts of excuses, and justifications. It's gotten so bad that most scientists today, if I bring up this problem of substance to them, they will say, Oh, Leo, but this is a philosophical matter. We are just scientists, we're humble people. We're just interested in practical things. We don't care about the the actual substance of things. These are questions that are for philosophers to debate in their arm chairs, it says though, you're debating, you know, how many angels can fit a on the, on the head of a pin? Classic Classica. Funny example from from medieval philosophy, or philosophers would depend how many debate how many? How many angels could fit on the head of a pin. And this was supposed to say that, you know, it's an absurd, it's an absurd debate. It's an absurd question to even wonder how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. But this is a straw man. In fact, it is possible to know the substance of a thing, what a thing is, but not through symbolic representation, because symbolic representation is always copies of copies of copies of copies, which never gets you to the actual thing itself. See, to answer the substance, question, you have to get to the territory. And the map will never get you to the territory. But if all you've got are maps and models, and you've completely dismissed the importance of territory, then to you, yeah, it's impossible to ever answer a substance question. And you will then convince yourself that that's how it should be. And that substance questions aren't even legitimate questions. They're meaningless. They're completely pointless. They have no significance to science or to mankind. That's what many physicists and scientists today have fooled themselves into believing. But again, that's just a belief. That's just an assumption. That's just a dogma. That is not actually real science. I challenge you, if you're a scientist, I challenge you to become directly conscious of the substance of any one of these things that I've been talking about. Anything, matter energy, humans life, consciousness, color, sound, heat, wave timespace anything, at least once in your life before you die, become directly conscious of at least the substance of one of these things. You might be shocked at how significant that discovery will be for you. You might be shocked. People who say that science is not in the business of answering substance questions. These people have no idea what science can really be. They are stuck in the current limited conceptions of science. But science doesn't have to be that way. You can answer substance questions. It just requires a new way of thinking about reality. Okay, I want to read you a quote now from Arthur Eddington who is a great physicist, and really understood this problem deeply. The problem of phone tag that's being played here, this sort of sleight of hand, there's a sleight of hand that science is playing that I want you to notice. Science is playing the sleight of hand avoiding the substance question. And then denying that is playing the sleight of hand. It's very similar to the way that when you're talking to a religious person, you know, you can ask them, Well, where did reality come from? And they will say, well, obviously God created it. And you will say, well, but that doesn't solve the problem. Because then what created God? And the religious person has no answer. He says, Well, God just always existed or something like that. But then you, you, you, as a scientist say, Well, why do you need God then? Why can't reality just always exist without the God? And of course, you're right. In that kind of reasoning. This is the sort of turtles problem of turtles all the way down and call it right, you're pushing the problem down further and further and further. You know, what supports the earth? In space? Well, it's the it's the it's the elephants, the four elephants that the earth is standing upon. Well, but But what supports the elephants? Well, it's the turtle. And what supports the turtle? Well, It's turtles all the way down. But why do you need turtles at all? Why do you need elephants? Why can't the earth support itself? See, science is playing the same game, but science is in denial that it's playing this game. You keep asking science what something is, and they'll always refer you to something else. It's going to be a pointer. It's a series of pointers. So it's like, what is a human? Well, it's just cells. What are cells? So I was just molecules? What are molecules? Just atoms? What are those? Well, it's just a subatomic quarks. And what are those? Well, those are strings. And what are strings? Well, it's just equations. And what are equations? Well, those are thoughts in the mind. And what are thoughts in the mind? Well, those are just neurons and what are neurons all it's just, it's just more cells and but but those see circular and you never understand what anything is through that process. And it's a great shame. So anyways, here's a quote from Arthur Eddington about this. He says, quote, our present conception of the physical world is hollow enough to hold anything. What we are dragging to light as the basis of all phenomena is a scheme of symbols connected by mathematical equations. That is what physical reality boils down to, when probed by the methods which a physicist can apply. A skeleton scheme of symbols proclaims its own hollowness. We have learned that the exploration of the external world By the methods of the physical sciences leads not to a concrete reality, but a shadow world of symbols, beneath which our methods are undoubted for penetrating. What do the symbols stand for? The mysterious reply is given that physics is indifferent to that it has no means of probing beneath the symbolism. The Victorian physicist felt that he knew just what he was talking about when he used such terms as matter and atoms. Atoms were tiny billiard balls, a crisp statement that was supposed to tell you all about their nature in a way which could never be achieved for transcendental things like consciousness, beauty, or humor. But now we realize that science has nothing to say, as to the intrinsic nature of the atom. The physical atom is like everything else in physics, a schedule of pointer readings. In science, we study the linkage of pointer readings, with pointer readings, the terms linked together in endless cycles, with the same inscrutable nature running through the hole and quote. Now the key mistake here is to think that yes, this is how it is Leo, and that's all that it could ever be. That's wrong. That's an assumption. That's a dogma. That's a methodological error. And it doesn't have to be that way. There's something deeper to reality than merely a cyclical network of pointer readings. You are acting so stupid as a scientist and as like an academic that you have boiled reality down to your own mental symbols, models and pointer readings. And you think that that's all there is. That's not all there is, there's something very profound beyond that, that you're missing. And I'm trying to help to open your mind. And your method to be able to access that which is beyond your pointer readings, and your maps and your models and your language and your symbols and your thoughts. That's all we're doing here is we're trying to open your mind up beyond the point your readings, but your mind is so arrogant, and so dogmatic and so closed minded, that it refuses to open up to anything beyond that, because it considers it pseudoscience. That's the word you invented, to protect yourself against accessing reality, beyond pointer readings. Please understand this. You have actually managed to demonize the territory. Because your methods can't access the territory directly. You've demonized the territory as unscientific, which is perhaps the greatest travesty and evil of science is the demonization of the territory, and any methods which get grant access directly to the territory. That's the state of modern science. The next problem of science is the following. To validate any scientific claim requires that you use my method, not your method to validate the claim. What this means is, here's how science really, truly works. If I say that God exists, and the method for validating that God exists, that you must take your finger and stick it in your ass, then that is the method and you must use that method to test my claim. You might think that's silly. And you might think that that's not valid science. But that, in fact, is valid science. Now, whether that will actually prove the existence of God, you don't know. You don't know until you actually stick your finger in your ass. It might prove it, it might not prove it. That's science. You see. Now, people misunderstand this point. So for example, let me give you a more tangible example. That's not as absurd. Let's say that. I claim I make a scientific claim that ghosts exist. You say, Okay, Leo, but show me the evidence. There's no evidence, I say, yes, there is evidence, the evidence is you must put on these glasses that I made and you will see a ghost. You say no Alia that. That does not that's not a legitimate method. You have no right to say that. You are actually being unscientific when you say that, to do true science. A person comes forward makes a definitive, empirical claim, such as ghosts exist. And then he says you can test my claim. And then he gives you a method for how to test the claim. And his claim is that if you use this method, you will realize that ghosts exist. And then it's your it's incumbent upon you, the scientist to actually do the test. And to figure out whether what he's saying is true or not. That's science. If you deny his claim, and you refuse to use his method, and you insist that your method must be used, that is not legitimate science. See, a lot of people get this wrong. They think that if somebody comes forward and makes a claim about nature, that then they get to choose what method is used to validate or invalidate that claim, this is false. So for example, if I tell you that there are, there are four moons orbiting around Jupiter, now there's more, but let's say you can only see four of them through a telescope. So I say there are four moons orbiting around Jupiter. That's my scientific claim. And I'm using this particular telescope to see those four moons. Now, you can validate what I'm saying is true by taking this telescope and looking up there in that location in the sky and you will see these four moons. That's the science. Now you say no, you know what? I don't like your idea of a telescope. So instead of a telescope, I'm gonna use a binocular I think a binocular is good enough. And so you take a monocular, you look up there, and you don't find the four moons. And you say, well, Leo, I looked up there with my binocular, I didn't find your four moons, so therefore they aren't real. You're a liar. And what you're talking about is pseudoscience. But you see, I didn't tell you that you could use a binocular I told you that you could use a telescope. And that's an important difference. You don't get to choose the method, I get to choose the method, you must use my method. Get that this is crucial. This is a huge mistake that scientists make. Because you see, within science, there's a collection of methods and instruments that are considered legitimate and valid. And then there's a collection which are not considered legitimate and not considered valid. But every method and instrument must be tested to see whether it truly is or isn't valid. Now, I'm not claiming here that ghosts actually exist, I'm using that just as an example. These are just examples. These are just thought experiments for you. contemplate these things for yourself. Test whether what I'm saying is actually true. You don't have to believe me Test test test. Again, I am making a scientific claim that all of the points that I'm making throughout this whole series of episodes, that all of these points are true, if you contemplate them for yourself independently. Again, that's a scientific claim. And I'm giving you a scientific method. The method is contemplation. Now, you might say oh, Leo, but I don't believe in the method of contemplation. Well, that's your fucking problem, and you're not being scientific. You might say, What do scientists empirical science doesn't depend upon contemplation? Again, that's your methodological problem. I am making a very specific scientific claim. I am making scientific points here. But these points you're not going to find in a book. And you're not going to find them out in nature, you must contemplate them. You must also contemplate what contemplation is. Because you don't know what contemplation even is. That's half your problem right there. See? For example, I'll give you a radical scientific claim. See, people accuse me of being so abstract that the things I'm talking about have no real world significance, but they do. Look, here's a very clear cut empirical scientific claim, I claim that you're not a human. Do you believe me? It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not, because science doesn't depend upon belief, at least it shouldn't. I claim that you're not a human. And I claim Furthermore, that that is a scientific statement. I claim that it's possible for you to become an inanimate object, like for example, it's possible for you to become a coffee table rather than a human. This is possible. Actually possible, how here's the method. But of course, you're not going to agree with my method. Smoke one gram of Salvia 60x Extract, not only once, you don't need to smoke one gram in one in one in one hit. I mean, over the course of weeks and months, you can spread it out, you don't smoke the whole gram at once. But smoking in sufficient quantities, maybe, you know, I don't know. 20 milligrams at a time. 50 milligrams at a time you have to find your proper dose. But if you smoke, sufficient amount of of salvia, you can become a coffee table. And you will realize you're not a human. Now you say to me, oh, that's just salvia. That's just some bullshit psychedelic thing is just hallucination. It's not real. It's not real science. Again, what did I tell you, you have to use my method, not your method. Furthermore, you have to actually do the experiment rather than pre judging it. You see, that's another key mistake that scientifically minded people make is they think that I can judge the method and its results before I actually try it. Therefore, I don't even need to try it. But that's not science. That's just fucking ignorance and dogma. That's just begging the question. You can do this experiment. Now you might say oh, yeah, but that's dangerous. It might ruin my brain might ruin my mind. Yes, yes. You could kill yourself. Salvia is a very dangerous psychedelic. It's one of the most dangerous psychedelics you could easily take salvia and kill yourself, because it interferes with your motor control. You could take salvia jump out of a fucking window. Um, you know, 10 story when don't kill yourself? Yes, you can. But when has science not been dangerous? is building a nuclear reactor safe? The early pioneers of radiation all died of radiation poisoning. Yeah, that doesn't invalidate the science. Just because something is dangerous, just because it's difficult to do, just because you don't want to do it, just because it's inconvenient for you, has nothing to do with the truth of the matter, you see. That's the difficulty of science. The reason science is so challenging is because it is dangerous. To send a man to Mars, to explore Mars and to do research on Mars is extremely dangerous. There's a very high probability that the first 10 or 20, people who live on Mars will die of a horrible death, because their equipment will malfunction because a rocket will explode because of some oxygen leak, or whatever. Yeah, that's science. But that's precisely what makes science valuable is that you're making these discoveries, which would be dangerous for most other people to make. See, that's why we build up this repository of knowledge, which gets turned into belief systems, because the convenient things about beliefs is that well, they actually own beliefs can be very dangerous. But you can believe things you know about the nature of reality without having to go and directly test them yourself. You know, you believe that plutonium is radioactive and that you shouldn't come near it, and then it might kill you. You know, large quantity of plutonium would be very dangerous. You believe that? Do you know have you tested it personally? No, of course not. It's too dangerous to test personally, people have died testing that our ancestors have died. And to test that. But for you, that's now just become a belief. So there you go, I made a very practical claim for you feel free to test it. Now, if you don't want to test it, or you're too afraid to test it. At least be honest about that. Don't blame me, don't create excuses about how I am being unscientific. And I'm being irrational. admit to yourself that you're too scared. And that you're not really a scientist, that you're not really interested in truth or in science. You're interested in defending your ideas, you're interested in survival, and you're interested in being comfortable? You're interested in living your comfortable little life? In which case, you're not a true scientist? In which case, what are we talking about? We shouldn't be having this conversation because you're not interested in truth. You see, I'm talking to people who are actually interested in truth, and actually interested in science. Those people will be willing to take some risks, to understand and to validate certain things that are said, like what I said with salvia. The next problem is what I call the black hole problem. This is a term that I coined the black hole problem. Basically what it means it means the following. So let's say that you do take me up on this challenge, the salvia challenge. And you're a scientist, let's say you're a scientist at MIT, a physicist or something. And all of your colleagues, of course, believe that they're human. And they believe that you're humans. This is just a belief they held. And they they will argue this as a scientific belief that you're human. But let's say you do take the salary and you realize that you're not human, you become a coffee table for for a few minutes, then you come back, you become human again. So you, you realize that you realize that your human form is just imaginary, and it's just temporary. Now, all of a sudden, now you you validated something very radical that's outside of the mainstream scientific paradigm of your colleagues. Now, you encounter the black hole problem. You have now through direct experience, become fully convinced that you're not human. But this is such a massive discovery. You want to share with all your colleagues, but then you discover that every Holly you share it with, they don't believe you. They think you've lost your mind. You tell them your We're not human. And they tell you what, are you crazy? Of course, we're human. Why are you being so unscientific? Saying that we're not human? Every scientist knows that we're human. That's just a scientific fact. And you tell them? No, no, you don't understand you. That's just an assumption. That's just an assumption, you got to actually do the experiment, do the experiment, I did, do what Leo said, go do a gram of salvia over a period of a month, and you'll become a coffee table and you're real, you'll realize that you're not human. And they, of course, laugh at you. And they say, Oh, well, those are just hallucinations. That's not real science. This is sort of hippie nonsense. No serious scientist would would consider Sally it to be genuine science. See, and then, and then you're stuck in the black hole problem, the black hole problem, what it means it's sort of like, the reason I call it that is because I see it in my mind, I visualize it as you enter a black hole. And the the amazing thing about a black hole is that it sucks all light and all objects into it, because it's so dense, such that you can't communicate any information outside the black hole, if you get sucked into a black hole, assuming you could survive, which you probably couldn't. But let's say you could magically survive, and you could explore the interior a black hole. And you might discover some amazing stuff inside that black hole, who knows what's in there, right? But then you'd want to communicate that information to the outside world to us humans, so that we could know what is inside of a black hole? We don't know. How would you do that? Well, of course you couldn't, because any signal that you send out of a black hole will get sucked back into the black hole. Because the definition of black hole is that light can't escape its gravitational pole. And any signal you send is going to be traveling at the speed of light at best. So if you try to send out some radio waves, that's light, electromagnetic radiation, any radio waves you send out will get sucked back into the black hole. And you won't be able to communicate what you see inside. So a similar phenomena happens. Within epistemology, with the human mind, once your worldview is radically expanded through some sort of experience, like with salvia, you realize, for example, that you're not human. And that the idea that you're human is just an idea. It's not actually true. And it's not scientific at all. You can't communicate it to anybody else, unless they have that experience themselves. In the same way that you can't communicate to another human being, that there are moons orbiting around Jupiter, if that human being is unwilling to look through a telescope, because the only way you can know that there are moons around Jupiter is by looking through a telescope. So unless they're willing to open their mind to your method, you're stuck in a black hole, the only way a human can know what's inside of a black hole is to enter that black hole for themselves. And every human has to enter the black hole for themselves. You see, just because one human did it, he can't pass that information back out. The second human has to come in. And of course, he also can't pass it back. And so this keeps happening and happening and happening and happening. So what might happen is that you're trying to convince your MIT colleagues that they're not humans, maybe you find one colleague got a ball, you know, 100 colleagues, you find one colleague who is a little bit open mind. And finally you convince him through much argumentation and much convincing and maybe use using some of the methodological points that I made about, you know, epistemology and metaphysics from these episodes, maybe you finally convinced them like, okay, fine, fine, I'll try this salvia, it sounds stupid, but I'll try it. And so he tries it and he realizes, holy shit, I'm not human. And now there's two of you, who understand that you're not human. But that doesn't change anything. Because there's still 98 of your colleagues who think that they are human. So you to now go and try to convince a third person to try salvia. And that's gonna be you have to do the whole process all over again, to convince a third person, he has to try it, he has to get it now there's three of you. Now there's still 97 of the other ones who think that they're human, you see, and so now it turns into the culture war. This is what scientific consensus, the whole problem of scientific consensus is that it's not enough to know the truth. Knowing the truth, as I said, in part two is the easy part. The hard part is convincing all of your colleagues of the truth. The hard part is getting your colleagues to realize the truth for themselves. That's the really hard part. That requires in many cases, direct experience, which they are unwilling to have. That requires them opening their mind to new methods of investigating reality to which they're not open to methods that they consider pseudoscience or hogwash or crack pottery. This black hole problem is a very serious problem. Contemplate this problem. for yourself to understand why science is so retarded. And yeah, I use that word. Deliberately. Science is retarded, literally retarded by its own closed mindedness and unwillingness to deeply contemplate metaphysical and epistemic issues that I've been discussing here. The next problem is that there is no distinction between hard and soft sciences. There's this idea that all of science can be boiled down to something as hard and tangible as physics. First of all, like we already said, even physics isn't really so hard because this doesn't actually answer any substantive questions about the nature of reality. All it does is just play with symbols and, and pointer readings of various models. So even physics is not as hard as you think it is. It's it's a game of avoiding the real issues. But, but see, physics is a very artificial example. Because physics, contrary to popular belief, physics is actually like the easiest science to do. The hard sciences are actually the easiest scientists. It's the softer sciences, which are the harder ones. When you're studying human psychology, that's hard. When you're studying atoms, that's easy. You think, you know, building a particle collider is hard. Yeah, I mean, it's hard, of course, cost billions of dollars. But in the end, that's easy, easy cake, compared to studying human psychology and understanding what drives human behavior, that's way more complex. And it's equally valid as a science. There is a sort of mistake that many scientists and rational people have these sort of overly rational people, they get stuck in this idea that everything can be boiled down to just physics. Again, it's the reductionism problem we talked about in part one and part two. But there's this sort of idea that the hard sciences are more real and more objective than the soft sciences. And therefore sciences like psychology, sociology, anthropology, even political science, these things, oftentimes, they're ridiculed in universities as not even being real sciences. It's like the real scientists are considered to be mathematics, physics, chemistry, even biology. Some people will say, it's kind of like, bullshit. You know, there's more room for bullshit there, it's more fuzzy. But again, this is a methodological bias. You see, there's nothing in the universe that says that atoms are more real or more primary than human psychology, or than sociology, or than political science. The idea that all well, billy-o human psychology can just be boiled down to atoms, or that Oh, political science, all of it is just atoms in physics. This is a myth. This is a myth. This is a convenient myth that was invented by physicists in order to justify Of course, that physics is superior to all the other sciences, which of course, is complete self bias. The only reason you think that is because, again, all you have is a hammer, and everything looks like a nail. Likewise, mathematicians also fall into this trap, they tend to want to reduce all of reality down to math. And they think, well, political science could just be boiled down to statistics. And, and then human psychology can just be boiled down to some sort of equations or something. And that really, it's math. That is the true, the true science. No, it's not. If you think that math is some sort of ultimate explainer of reality, that's only because that's the method you're good at. That's the method you were taught, and you know, no other method. Again, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. So this distinction between hard and soft sciences, this is pure myth, pure fantasy, there is no such distinction. And in fact, some of the most important sciences are the soft sciences, they're some of the most difficult sciences to do. They require a very, very intuitive, holistic mind. Whereas in physics, you can be kind of very artistic when you're doing physics. You can be very, you know, analytical with how you do physics, but even there, of course, not not fully. But when you're dealing with the soft sciences, you have to really expand your definitions of what science is in order to approach these softer aspects of reality. And just because the aspect of reality is soft, or emotional, or fuzzy, doesn't make it any less real. The fuzzy soft stuff is as real as the hardest physical stuff. It's just a different kind of real. And you have to be careful with your method being too biased towards the hard stuff, as opposed to the soft stuff. Because if you were truly being neutral, as you should as a scientist, then you should not put anything on a pedestal above anything else. You shouldn't put atoms on a pedestal above human psychology, or human emotions, or political science, or anthropology or whatever. Because all of these soft things are just as real as atoms. And in fact, I can make a case that they're more real than atoms. Atoms are, are a fiction, atoms are completely imaginary, according to quantum mechanics, as our strings, as are quarks and all anything else that you want to ground reality in, it's all imaginary. There's nothing hard about it. This is a myth. Of course, there's also no distinction possible between the natural, the supernatural, the normal, and the paranormal. This is a huge delusion within modern science, the term supernatural, and paranormal, these are completely relative terms. And these terms change with the times. And science is constantly moving the goalposts with these terms. What's considered normal today and natural today. And what's considered supernatural and paranormal today, this will all change 100 years from now. So for example, you might consider that a ghost to supernatural and paranormal and therefore it can't exist. Because everything according to science has to be natural and material and normal. But then let's say, using some new technology, science is actually able to see ghosts and study ghosts. And so they do 100 years from now, let's say they're going to study these ghosts until they reach a point of scientific consensus where people agree, okay, ghosts exist and we can study them, we can capture them, put them in a cage, you know, using a vacuum cleaner, or whatever. And then, and then, at some point, people will get so used to ghosts being real, that nobody will question the legitimacy of ghosts. And at that point, ghosts will not be considered supernatural, paranormal, they will just be considered normal and natural. And then some other thing like unicorns will be considered supernatural and paranormal until you discover a unicorn, and then again, the unicorn will be labeled as natural and normal. This has been happening throughout all of human history. So when scientifically minded people deny certain phenomena, because they seem supernatural or paranormal, this is this is a pure mind game. These are labels of demonization that the mind invents in order to deny certain categories of reality. There is no definition of what is normal and what is paranormal. Basically, what a scientist means when they say that something is supernatural or paranormal, is they what they mean by that is that it's so outside of the current conceptions and paradigms of science, that it can't be real. Because our current paradigm forbids such a thing from existing. That's essentially what supernatural and paranormal mean. But of course, as the paradigm of science expands the notions of what a supernatural paranormal will completely change. And that which used to be considered supernatural and paranormal will cease being so and will become scientific. There is no distinction possible between science and pseudoscience pseudoscience for the same reason, because to know the difference between science and pseudoscience, you have to do science. That's what science is about. You can't assume ahead of time, what is pseudoscience? For example, at at one point in human history, not that long ago, X rays were considered pseudoscience. X rays were considered hocus pocus. Today, they're considered totally normal, totally natural. Today you go to the dentist and when he scans your teeth with the X ray. You hardly even bat an eye but if that happened to you 100 years ago, 200 years ago, you might have considered this dentist a quack and a charlatan and some sort of witch doctor. There is, in fact, no distinction between technology and magic. Technology is just magic that you've become so used to, and that you understand how it works. Therefore, you just call it technology and you take it for granted. Whereas magic is simply any aspect of reality which you don't understand the mechanics of how it works. And therefore, to you, it seems magical. That's it. That's all it is. If you took a modern day cell phone back to ancient Greek times, they would have thought that you're a witch, that you're a sorcerer. And that you have some sort of magical device. And they wouldn't have considered a technology, they would have considered it magic. Likewise, if somebody came from the future, to today's time, and you know, had a teleporter machine, or time travel technology, or faster than light technology, or whatever, even, you know, a computer that's going to exist 100 years from now, if that computer was brought into today's time, we would, we would consider it pure magic, and our scientists would not know how it works. For example, if we discovered an alien spacecraft on Mars, and we brought it back to Earth, we would basically consider it magic. Because the technology would be so advanced, we wouldn't understand how it works, it would be equivalent to magic. And it would seem very mysterious, and maybe even supernatural and paranormal, because it would be so weird. It's so different from what we're used to. You see, you have to understand that very much what science considers natural, physical and normal is simply anything that we're very used to. This is completely relative. These terms are virtually meaningless. They change every century. Another problem for science is that science misunderstands objectivity and subjectivity. Science pretends as though it knows what these words mean. It doesn't. Science pretends as though it is objective. And it tries to avoid the subjective, because by definition, science is supposed to be objective. Therefore, it's supposed to not be subjective. But of course, the absurd contradiction here is that all of science is subjective. All of science is happening within your subjective consciousness, the only place that science exists is inside of your mind. Science does not exist anywhere else. And by definition, your mind is subjective. You are the subject that is doing the science. Odd. So science has this whole paradigm completely backwards. Science believes that we have an objective reality within which we have local bubbles of subjectivity. And that what science is interested in is not studying the bubbles of subjectivity, but it's studying the larger bubble of the objective reality. That's how science frames it. Actually, the truth is that it's completely the opposite. What what is actually going on is that all there is is one bubble of subjectivity. There is only subjectivity, reality is only subjectivity. There's nothing objective about it, within the bubble of subjectivity, your personal subjectivity as a scientist or as a thinking, being, within that bubble of subjectivity. You carve out a smaller bubble, which you call objectivity into which you place all of your scientific beliefs and ideas. And then you call that objective. And you believe that this bubble is larger than the subjective bubble. And you play this game, that you are actually objective when in fact, you're completely subjective. And what you call objectivity is just a partition within the larger bubble of pure subjectivity, which you cannot escape. There is no escaping subjectivity. Because reality is nothing but subjectivity. That's not a belief. It's not an ideology. That's the nature of consciousness. Speaking of which, science has a very serious problem with consciousness. Science doesn't understand what consciousness is. Not Not only does it not understand using its For a paradigm and methods that will never understand what consciousness is. Science, in its current form is incapable of accounting for consciousness. This is a huge, huge, huge problem for science that almost no scientist understands the scope and significance of they treat this problem as though it's like, well, yeah, of course, Lea, we don't understand what consciousness is. But that's because consciousness is just this fluffy, fuzzy thing. It's very subjective, it's difficult to understand, it's probably just an illusion. It's not very important. It's just neurons and stuff. So it's not part of physics, and therefore, we don't really need to worry about it. We'll figure it out, you know, future scientists in 100 years, they'll figure it out. No, they won't. Not within the current paradigm of science, a totally new paradigm is necessary. Science thinks that consciousness is a is sort of like a secondary or even a tertiary feature of reality. It's not prime, it's not foundational, it's not central to reality. This is completely wrong. Consciousness is exactly the opposite. Consciousness is the most fundamental layer of reality, consciousness is more fundamental than atoms, quarks, strings, mathematics, science, or anything else. All of those things are happening within consciousness. And there is nothing outside of consciousness, because consciousness is infinite. You are consciousness, you are conscious right now of science, of the things that I'm saying. The only reason we can have discussion about science is because you're conscious. If you weren't conscious, there would be no science. There is no science, there is no reality outside of consciousness, and you can become directly conscious of this. But scientists are in denial about that. Another huge problem for science is that science hinges upon Excuse me, let me get a drink here. Science hinges upon human neurology. Science is in denial, that all of science is relative to human neurology. What I'm saying is that if you would change the neurology of the human brain, all of your science would change, none of your science would stay the same. In a sense, what science is studying is not the laws of the material universe, what science is really studying is the specific neurology of human consciousness. So all of the physical laws, all of the work that Newton and Einstein has done all of mathematics, all of logic, all of chemistry, all of cosmology, you think that this is all a study of the external material world, it's not all it is, is it's a mapping, and a study of human neurology. That's it. Which of course, makes science completely subjective and relative to human neurology, you change the neurology, the whole, the whole universe changes. Sciences, is in deep denial about this. See, no physicist wants to admit that he spent his whole life studying human neurology without realizing it. He wants to believe that he's actually been studying something outside of human neurology. Which leads us to the ultimate problem of science. I call this the self reference problem for science. This is The Strange Loop of science. Go see my episode called Reality is a strange loop to understand that concept from Douglas Hofstadter. I'm borrowing that concept from him. Very powerful concept of a strange loop. Alright, so look how it works. Here's the self reference problem science. Science is being done within consciousness. It can only be done within consciousness. Science is trying to explain itself, but it can't explain itself, because the very method is trying to use is like trying to get an eyeball to look at itself. Or it's like trying to get a knife to cut itself. You can't use a knife to cut a knife, at least not the same knife. Because, you know, you can't turn the blade in on itself. But because reality is one as we talked about in part two, because reality is a singular thing. And science is part of reality. Science is trying to sort of reach around and grab itself, but it can't in the same In way in a in a snake can't eat itself by its own tail. So, specifically, here's how it works. According to science, according to modern science, this is again, this is not according to my logic, it's according to modern science. Perception is a byproduct of the human brain. And of course, the brain itself is a perception. So according to modern science the entire material world is just perception, which is happening inside of a brain, but the brain is also perception. So you've got perceptions wrapped up inside of perceptions. And of course, science itself is happening within perceptions. Therefore, science is nothing but a perception. And therefore the brain. There is no brain because brain is just perception. So you've got perceptions within perceptions, which literally means that according to modern science, all of science is just a hallucination. Because isn't that what all this is here? Everything you've ever experienced in your life has just been a hallucination, according to modern science, because if we changed the neuro transmitters in your mind, all of this will change. All of it with all the colors, all the sounds, all the feelings, all the emotions, and that's all there is to reality. All of reality is made up for of colors, sounds, feelings, and emotions. And that's all that science made up of. Science is not made up of atoms. See, here's the question that science cannot answer. What is the substance of science itself? I dare you to ask a serious scientist, what is the substance of science? What is science actually made up of? What's he going to say? He's going to say sighs man of atoms. But what are atoms made up of? quarks? But what are those made up of strings? But what are those made up of numbers? But what are numbers? Are you really going to seriously sit there and say that science might have been numbers out of equations? But what are equations? The numbers, their thoughts? So are you gonna say that science medical thoughts? But what are the thoughts made up of? Are you gonna say thoughts are made up of neurons? No, because neurons are also thoughts. You're gonna say they're made up of molecules, but molecules are also thoughts. But no, they're made of atoms. Atoms are also thoughts. But no, they're made up of strings. Strings are also thoughts. What are thoughts made up of? So, science contradicts itself. Of course, if you think about it deeply. Science has already demonstrated modern science has already demonstrated that all of science is a hallucination. All of science has undermined itself. It's just a hallucination. But of course, are scientists conscious of this? Are they willing to admit this? Is a physicist willing to admit that all of his life's work of physics is pure hallucination? Of course not. Is the physicist willing to admit that atoms are just thoughts? Of course not? Is a mathematician willing to admit that all numbers and equations are a hallucination? Of course not. This is career suicide for them. Their ego is incapable of admitting this. But it doesn't take a genius to see that what I'm saying here is true. Sit down and contemplate it for even 10 minutes, you'll realize what I'm saying is correct. This is not a belief. It's not an ideology, you just look at what's going on. Look at the explanations that you're using to explain reality. Notice the circularity and the contradiction within your own explanations of your experience in reality, you're claiming that there's a some material universe out there somewhere made up of numbers and equations. And what is this? This is just your own hallucination in your mind. It's just bots. It's just, I mean, you might as well believe in Santa Claus. Santa Claus is as real, as numbers are. As equations are, as any of your scientific models are. It's just hallucination. But of course, all of this is going to be denied. My deepest teaching from this series of episodes if you fancy yourself as one of my most advanced students, and you want to get like, Leah, what are you really tried to say here? What if I really want to understand science at its deepest levels? What do you want me to understand about it? It's this all of science is simply your imagination. That's it. There's absolutely nothing more to science than imagination. Science is as imaginary as a unicorn, or a Santa Claus. That's not a belief. That's not an ideology. That is an empirical claim that you can validate for yourself. And I hope that one day you get that I don't mean that you're going to think it, I mean, you're actually going to become directly conscious of it. These are two different things. One day, you can become directly conscious, if you keep doing this work. And you jailbreak your mind, you can become directly conscious that all of science, including atoms, stars, planets, the Earth, gravity, forces, matter, energy, time, space, all of that is as imaginary as a unicorn. I hope you're appreciating the significance of what I'm saying, I'm saying something very radical. I'm saying something extremely radical. And, in order for me to say this, and for it not to just completely glance off your mind, but to actually get stuck in your mind and really have some traction. For you to get it, we had to spend eight hours of deconstructing the myth of science just to get you to this point, just so that you can even entertain the just entertain the idea that all of science might be as imaginary as a unicorn. It might take you 10 more years of hard work of contemplation and deconstruction, and meditation and so forth, to actually actualize the understanding that science is imaginary. But it took just eight hours of this advanced deconstruction, all this theory, all this build up, just to get you to the point of perhaps entertaining this idea. And even even here, I'm probably going to lose over 95% of my audience at this point. 95% of you listening will not open your will not have sufficient open mindedness or intelligence, just to just to hold the idea that all of science could be imaginary. You see, that's the depth of the problem. With teaching, the things that I teach is that it takes a long time to build up to the punch line. Because the punch line is so radical, that if you were given the punch line from the very beginning, you would just shut off the video, and you would call me an idiot. And your mind would make up all sorts of excuses and names for me. And the information would not penetrate your mind. That's because like I said at the very beginning, we're jailbreaking your mind here. And your mind is using every possible mechanism in its bag of tricks in order to prevent the jailbreak from occurring. But for those 5% of you who are still with me, well, that's what this whole series was about, is to get you to this point. But recognize that this is just the tip of the iceberg. You haven't really understood anything yet, that I've been talking about. It's all just at the level of theory for you. This is just pure theory and ideas right now. Recognize that what I'm actually talking about is not theory or ideas, I'm talking about something. Beneath that I'm talking about the territory. So far, I've just been giving you a map, we need to give you a map because you don't understand anything else yet. But one day, you will reach the territory. And for now, I just want you to recognize that I gave you a map, the map is pointing to some territory, you're gonna have to find a way to get from the map to the territory, and that your job is not done until you reach the territory. Do not get lost in the map. Do not make the mistake of thinking that just by understanding the map, you've got it because you don't got it. It'll take you 10 more years to get it another problem of science is that all of science hinges upon your state of consciousness. As absolutely every aspect of science that we know today is only true given a certain state of consciousness that a person is in. If we change your state of consciousness, every truth of science will become false and will become irrelevant. You can test this by actually changing your state of consciousness. For example, if you get so drunk that you can barely walk down the street straight. Is there science for you in that state of consciousness? So you've changed your state of consciousness? No, there's no science, science does not exist, literally, science does not exist within that drunken state of consciousness. Now you say, Well, you know, that's just because the guy is drunk. And? And yeah, of course, he can't think straight. And, but that doesn't prove anything. But see? What about when you're in deep sleep? Or when you're dreaming? Is there science? When you're dreaming? Is there gravity? Are there atoms? Are there molecules? Is there physical barriers when you're dreaming? There could be but they're also couldn't, they don't have to be? You experienced dreams where you're flying around, there's no gravity, you're walking through walls, this sorts of stuff. Time is warped in all different. Even logic is different in dreams. Conventional linear logic doesn't even apply in dreams, weird stuff happens. That doesn't even make logical sense. You see, that's because you're in different state of consciousness. Let's see. Why do you assume that this particular state of consciousness that you're in right now that this is somehow an objective state of consciousness, that there's something special about this state, as opposed to when you're drunk, or as opposed to when you're sleeping, or whatever? Of course, there's not. It's completely relative. There are 1000s of different states of consciousness, you and your life have maybe only experienced three or four of them when you're sleeping when you're drunk, when you're having sex, whatever. And the only reason you assume that science is real is because for 99% of your life, you're stuck in this one. We might call it the materialistic state of consciousness. But that state of consciousness can change just like that. Tomorrow, you can die and your state of consciousness can really change. You can take a psychedelic your state of conscious will completely change all of science will fly out the window. See, scientists don't get this. Another problem within science is that science in general has a methodological bias towards demystifying reality. Science uses mysticism and mystery as a pejorative. And, in fact, you can find many videos and even articles written by scientists where the title of the video will be something like blank demystified. We are demystifying physics demystifying whatever, you know, nature demystifying whether demystifying. UFOs, demystifying animals demystifying religion demystifying everything again, this is a methodological bias. You see, what I want you to notice here is that you've never actually seriously open your mind to the possibility that maybe the fundamental nature of reality is mystical or mysterious. And that mystery is not a bug, but a feature of reality. Mystery is not a delusion of the human mind. Mystery is not something that we need to do away with, because it's bad. Mystery is fundamental to what reality and consciousness are. And that the only reason you've gotten stuck on this relentless drive to demystify everything is because that's what you've been brainwashed into. You've never actually scientifically validated the need for demystification. You see, that's a methodological bias and assumption. And that in fact, when you are trying to demystify everything, you are being highly unscientific. There is no reason why science cannot be mystical. There is no reason why reality cannot be mystical. You assume that through analysis and reduction, you can demystify all of nature. But notice, you don't know that. You've never known that and you've never tested that. That's just an assumption. It's just a dogma. It's just a bias. And it happens to be false. Tada here's another problem of science is that science makes more mistakes than religion. See, when scientists debate with religious people, they pretend as though you know, science is, is the standard bearer of truth. And religion is full of nonsense and delusion. But there's a gross double standard here. Because religion is often criticized for being wrong. And for denying its errors. Yet science historically has been more wrong than religion. And yet, science always gets a pass on its errors and mistakes. When scientists make mistakes, those mistakes are whitewashed and excused away as just being part of science. But when religion makes mistakes, that's held against religion forever. See, like, people will criticize religions, like, like in the Bible, it is written that you know, eat a stone homosexuals, and other you know, barbaric things like this. And this shows you just how you know how deluded and, and cruel religion is and how wrong it is. Okay, but if you take a science text from 2000 years ago, it's gonna have a lot of crazy stuff in it. That was way, way, way wrong. Go find a 2000 year old, you know, scientific text, you're gonna find so much wrong worse than in the Bible. Now, I'm not using this to defend the Bible. Of course, there's a lot of bullshit in the Bible, of course, of course. But I'm just trying to show you the double standard that atheists and real and scientific people and rational people hold this gross double standard when it comes to science, science makes more mistakes than religion. That's actually good. Through mistakes is how it improves. What you see when science makes an improvement, nobody says all all of science is bad because it made a bunch of mistakes in the past. No, we say, we give science an excuse. We say, Well, yeah, it was it was wrong in the past, but we're kind of doing the best we can. And today it's better. It's not perfect, but it's better. But with religion, an atheist doesn't give this kind of leeway to religion. As soon as an atheist finds one thing in any religious text or any religious teaching that is wrong, or, or bad in some way, then that has held against religion forever. And I mean, religion evolves just like science, the pope today, the current pope, that of the Catholic Church that we have today. He's actually very progressive. He's, he's coming out, he's come out recently for like, supporting environmental movements. He's come out against, you know, climate change deniers. He's come out for, you know, homosexuals and same sex marriage. And so I mean, the Catholic Church is evolving just the same way that sciences, the Catholic church of today is not the Catholic Church of 1000 years ago. Not at all. It's completely evolved, it's become a lot more progressive, it's become a lot more compassionate. It's become a lot more accepting of various kinds of scientific facts. But doesn't atheist give this kind of leeway to the Catholic Church? No, of course not. The atheist considers the Catholic Church complete bullshit, because of all the hypocrisy and all of the denial and all the gross epistemic errors that have been made by by the Catholic Church. But yet, when it comes to science, all of it is excused. None of it matters. It doesn't matter that scientists used to believe, for example, that X rays were hoax. It doesn't matter. For example, that as as little as 150 years ago, scientists believe that heavier than air flying vehicles were impossible doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, for example, that scientists used to believe that going faster than 60 miles per hour. You know, before there were high speed trains and cars would would make people's heads explode. Scientists used to believe all this shit. It doesn't matter. The scientists used to believe that washing hands was hocus pocus. Doesn't matter. All of this stuff has been excused away, completely forgotten completely whitewashed, and now everyone just expects science to be this pristine, standard bearer of truth. No. Modern science is just as stupid as, as it always was. Just as modern religion is just as stupid as it always was. It's evolved over 2000 years, but the stupidity is still there. All because nobody, whether it's in religion, or in science, is deeply contemplating any of these issues that I'm talking about. It's all taken for granted. the doing of science changes science. But notice that the change doesn't come from within In science, the change comes from outside of science. And therefore, the boundaries of science are ever expanding. Now, I want to give you a list of over 20 contradictions within science. Because a lot of times scientifically minded and rationally minded atheists do the amount of people pretend as though only religion has gross contradictions within it, but not science. Of course, this is horseshit. So here's a list of contradictions. Number one, science says that the brain generates all perceptions, but the brain and science itself and realism itself and objectivity are themselves just perceptions. So according to science, science itself is just a perception and therefore a hallucination. And that actually, science is a psychedelic state and nothing more. Because of course, right now, you're in a psychedelic state, because psychedelics are just neurotransmitters. You've got neurotransmitters, you've got a soup of neurotransmitters going on right now, inside your brain, according to science, so therefore, according to science, all of science is just a hallucination. Contradiction number two, is that science criticizes belief. And yet, science is factually 99% belief. That's what science is. Over 99% of everything you know about science is belief. The planet Mars is a belief. Dinosaurs are a belief. The age of the Earth is a belief. The idea that the Earth orbits around the Sun is the belief all these things for you are just beliefs. All the science you learn in school are just beliefs. Contradiction number three, science criticizes religion for indoctrination and appeals to authority. And yet, modern science is taught by indoctrination and appeals to authority. We talked about this in part two, in a lot of detail, credentials, Nobel Prizes, status, expertise, the the authority that comes from working in an institution like MIT or Caltech, or Stanford, or Oxford, or Harvard. This is all pure appeals to authority. Anytime you're trying to prove science, you're going to appeal to some scientist as an appeal to authority. And, of course, everything that children are taught in schools, and all the stuff that's taught in universities to undergrads. All of that is pure indoctrination. Of course, it's denied as being indoctrinated, but it's an explanation. The next contradiction is that science claims to be independent of human culture, and yet science can only exist as a culture. Without culture, there is no modern science. Please recognize this. The next contradiction is that science demands proof. Yet science cannot prove the existence of an external objective world, of others of identity, of death, or of object permanence. None of the things have been proven, none of them will ever be proven, and yet science demands proof of everything. I mean, there is no more obvious contradiction. The next contradiction is that science demands proof. And yet science cannot prove its own foundations, its own methodology cannot be proven using science. The next contradiction is that science claims to be the best epistemology the best epistemic method. And yet, of course, this cannot be proven. The next contradiction is that science is supposed to be objective. And yet, it's obviously being done by subjective, biased, selfish creatures who are engaged in an activity of survival, which has nothing to do with objectivity or truth. The next contradiction is that science denies first person subjective phenomena, and yet all of science is itself a first person subjective phenomena. So science is denying itself without realizing that it's doing so. The next contradiction is that science tries to dismiss consciousness as an illusion, even though all of science is occurring within consciousness, so again, a gross self denial. The next contradiction is that scientists, science claims that mathematics is objective. And yet mathematics is obviously completely relative and subjective. Because what counts as a number. How you assign numbers to things is completely relative, for example. What number is this hand? You could say it's one hand or you could say it's a A dozen different bones and muscles and organs. Or you could say it's a, it's millions of cells. Or you could say it's billions of molecules. Or you could say it's trillions of atoms. Or you could say it's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of quarks. Or you could say, it's trillions upon trillions and trillions and trillions of strings. So which is it can be anything from one to trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions, completely relative completely subjective, which number you assigned to this hand, and this is true for all assignments of numbers throughout the entire universe. The assignment of number is completely subjective, feature phenomenon of the human mind projecting number upon reality. The next contradiction is that science demands form a logical proof for things and yet the most groundbreaking science is done not through any kind of proof process, but actually through leaps of intuition. The proof comes retroactively as we talked about in part two, the next contradiction is that science issues faith. Yes, science has blind faith in its own foundations, in quantification in logic, in scientific method, in the objective external world in others, self and mind. The next contradiction is that science criticizes religion for relying on authority, yet it dismisses unorthodox claims within science. Because it doesn't come from reputable enough scientists. Anytime some idea is rejected, or one's mind is close to the idea because it doesn't come from a reputable enough scientist or source that is an appeal to authority. Another contradiction is that the truth of science supposedly hinges on reason, and yet reason it is used all the time to justify all sorts of false claims. So how can you use reason to ground the truth of science? When reason is always used for false claims? Every false claim has reasons behind it. It's the gross contradiction. Another contradiction is that everything must be proven. And yet, Google and Tarski formally proved that truth exceeds proof, and that you can never prove everything. That's true. Peyton contradiction. The next contradiction is that science claims to be objective and yet the bureaucracy of building consensus is a deeply political and institutional and bureaucratic process. How can science be objective, when the universities in which science is done are deeply deeply political? And their first priority is the survival of that institution rather than truth or science itself? Another contradiction is that science claims to be fallible and open to change. And yet, when deep errors are pointed out within science, they are denied. And the people who point out these errors are demonized. Gross contradiction. Other contradiction is that science claims to be free of metaphysics, yet it makes many unproven materialist and realist metaphysical claims. Gross contradiction. Another contradiction is that science claims to be purely pragmatic, and yet at the same time, science also wants to claim to be the pinnacle of truth within society and culture. So on the one hand, science, when it's backed into a corner that says, oh, no, we're just being purely pragmatic. We don't care about the truth at all. Science can't discover the truth. And yet, in culture, it wants to be treated as truth, not as simply something that's purely utilitarian. Another contradiction is that science claims to be open minded, and yet science rejects any methods and epistemologies outside of itself as pseudoscience. That's not open minded. Another contradiction is that science claims that God and spirituality are unscientific, and yet in fact, materialism and realism are unscientific. Another contradiction is that science claims that it is objectively true, because it works, because it's practical. And yet science denies the same justifications for other worldviews and epistemologies, which also work and which are also practical. So when science is practical and it works, then it's true. But when some other worlds you is practical and it works, then it's not true. This is gross hypocrisy. Gross double standard. Another contradiction is that science criticize religion on the grounds of how historically wrong religion has been. But science, as I just said, has been more historically wrong than religion. Science allows itself the privilege of evolving over centuries, but science does not allow religion or other worldviews the same luxury. Any error in some other worldview is considered a dead end, and a complete rejection of that worldview. But any error within science is not considered a complete rejection of science, it actually is considered as strengthening science. This is gross hypocrisy. Another contradiction with the science is that science criticize religion on the grounds that it kills millions of people. But actually, science kills more people than religion. The only way you can kill millions and millions of people is with science and technology, advanced technology, you can't do it with sticks and stones. And by the way, sticks and stones, you can consider that part of science. But see, when people are killed in the name of religion, all that is blamed on religion. But when people die in the name of science. That's just taken as normal. And there's nothing we can do about it. For example, when hundreds of 1000s die in Japan from the dropping of a nuclear weapon that's not blamed on science that's blamed on the politicians. When 50,000 people a year die of opioid overdose overdoses, due to science, opioids were developed by science by modern science. When this happens, you know, big pharma in America, you know, kills hundreds of 1000s of people with, with their, you know, various kinds of bad drugs. This is not blamed on science. This is blamed on business or it's billing on politics or blame it on something else. But when similar things happen within religion, for example, it's all blamed on religion. A gross double standard. Another contradiction is that science assumes that the universe cannot be intelligent. And yet, humans are supposed to be intelligent. But humans are part of the universe. How can humans be intelligent but the universe has to be dumb. This is so stupid. It's so arrogant to think that humans can be intelligent but the universe cannot. It comes from a duality, and a sort of a separation of the human from the universe, thinking that the human is outside of the universe. But of course, the human is obviously part of the universe. Anything that the human can do, the universe can do, by definition, because the human is just a subset of the larger superset which is the universe. It's sort of like saying that the stripes on a zebra can be white. The stripe can be white, but the zebra cannot be white. But the stripe is on the zebra. To say that the stripe is white is to say that the zebra also has white pigment on it. The stripe is not separate from the zebra, the Zebra is made up of the stripes. Likewise, with human intelligence, human intelligence is just a stripe of Universal Intelligence. And the last contradiction is that science justifies itself with logic. Yet logic itself admits that it only works assuming true premises. The problem with logic is not the logic is the premises that you use for your logic. The only way logic works is that if you have true premises to begin with, and you also select the correct axioms for your logic, so it's the premises which are really in question. It's not a question of, are you being logical? It's a question of, are your premises valid or not? And logic can never adjudicate between which premises are valid and which are not. So he can't use logic to ground science. There's a great quote from John Stuart Mill. about religion that I really love. If you're an atheist, you might like this quote as well. I'll read it for you here. Jon Stewart said in the comedian, he said, religion, it's given hope in a world torn apart by religion. I love that quote, because it's a bit strange, loopy, I love everything strange, loopy and self reflective like that. But I was thinking about this quote, it was one of my favorite quotes of all time that I kind of jotted down in my notes about the nature of religion, but I was thinking about and then I and then it hit me one day, like lightning flash, it hit me that I can just replace the word religion with the word science, and this quote, would be even more true. Which shows you the gross double standard that atheists and rationalist and scientists use. So I've adjusted John Stewart's quote, to make it now my quote, this is Leo's quote, and the quote goes like this, feel free to use it if you'd like. It goes like this. Science is given hope in a world torn apart by science. Even more true. Think about it. Think about all of the strife and struggle that we have today in society? Is it because of religion? Or is it because of science? Think of all the drugs. Think of all the car crashes. Think of all the social media propaganda and shenanigans that are going on. Think of all the suicides that are happening, using what? Guns knives, which are products, science, think of all the warfare that has ever happened. People say religious warfare killed millions of people but all warfare is not. First and foremost religious. It's first and foremost scientific. For example, Leonardo da Vinci. You know, he was a great early pioneer scientist. What was his day job. His day job was working for the rulers of Florence. Probably like the Medici family or something in Italy in Florence. He was working for these kings and princes building war weaponry. His job was to devise weapons of war. How to Break through castle walls, lay siege and kill as many people as possible. Think of how many scientists are working on new weapons in the military industrial complex. New torpedoes, new missiles, new drones, new weapons, new guns, new bullets, new munitions, new fighter jets, new tanks, new flame throwers, nerve agents, new chemicals, new gas, biological warfare, atomic new atomic weapons, weapons for space, the space force that now we have, thanks to Donald Trump. Now, I'm not saying of course, that we become Neanderthals and stopped developing technology, I'm just saying, Be honest. Stop being a hypocrite. When you criticize some other worldview, apply those same criticisms to your own worldview. Get a little taste of your own medicine. See, otherwise you become very smug and you think that all science is so much better than religion? Is it really think about it? Think about how the Internet has been tearing nations apart. These Facebook and YouTube rabbit holes with conspiracy theories, thanks to the internet. See? People say Oh, Leo, you should be so thankful because you're using YouTube in order to publish your content and you're being a hypocrite for criticizing science because you're using YouTube. Oh, yeah. Well, you're being a hypocrite by not acknowledging all of the bad shit that happens thanks to fiber optic technology. The spread of Alex Jones and his conspiracy theories and how this has been tearing apart the country and the world. The manipulation and information warfare that has been happening through computer technology, all the money that's being stolen hackers. But see, you're not going to accept responsibility for this as a scientist, you're gonna say, oh, Leo, that's just humans being humans. That's just all political stuff. You know, we scientists, we just invent the technology. We just, we just study nature and we don't care about how you use the technology. If you use the technology in evil ways, well, that's not. That doesn't fall on our hands. We're not responsible for that. But you see how irresponsible you are? You see how in denial you are. Because he, I can use the same logic for religion, I could create a religion, I could say, I've created this beautiful religion. It's so beautiful. It's so truthful, and all this. But then when people get their hands on it, then they become religious fanatics, and they develop cults, and they start slaughtering each other over this, over this ideology that I invented. And then you're gonna blame me for it. See? And then when I say, Oh, well, I'm not responsible for that. Yeah, I wrote this religious text, but then people become fanatics. That's their problem, not my problem. So you would never let me get away with that. And yet, as a scientist, you just compartmentalize and you just want to do your science. And you just want to kind of take this approach where like, well, the science doesn't matter. Like I mean, the science has nothing to do with, with what the politicians want, and with power and with, you know, human lives and human well being, you know, that's not a question for science, that those are questions beyond science. But see, when you take this sort of compartmentalized, reductionistic approach, then you create a fragmented reality. And then you yourself, have to leave it at your own children. See, you might take this sort of approach, but then reality will come back and bite you in the ass. For example, your own son, or daughter might get hooked on opioids and then shoot themselves in the head. And then maybe you will reconsider the work that you do in Big Pharma, as a researcher, and as a scientist, maybe, then you'll understand that actually, everything in nature and reality is connected. You can't just separate things. You can't just say, Well, yeah, I'm a little scientist who's working on a nuclear weapon. And I don't care about who uses a nuclear weapon for what? No, you have to care about what you create, the technology you create, it all is interconnected. When you give powerful technology to idiots, they might blow up the whole world, including your precious science will get blown up with it. Science doesn't exist without society, without culture. Without funding from governments, there is no science. Without universities, and all of these things depend upon having a healthy population. Science can't exist when people are brainwashed with conspiracy theories, and all sorts of crazy, ridiculous ideologies, through Facebook, and through YouTube, and other channels and sources of disinformation. It's all connected. And you have yet to realize the significance of that. This is the entanglement problem. So let's now directly answer the question of what is science? And this is a question I want you to contemplate independently for yourself for the next 10 or 20 years of your life. What is science? I want you to derive these answers for yourself. But in the interest of helping you along, I'm going to give you some of my own conclusions from having contemplated this question for some 15 or 20 years. The way I'm gonna give this answer is not as a single statement, but as multiple perspectives. Because, you know, what we're doing here is we're taking a very multi perspectival approach to the understanding of reality. So usually, when I tell you about something, it's never one thing, it's it's a, it's a mishmash of different perspectives that are interpenetrating and connected. So here are different lenses at which you can explain what science is. So first of all, science is an imaginary scheme for explaining, predicting, manipulating and making sense of the world. That's one definition of science. Another definition of science is that it's a projection of the mind. Another thing we could say about science and our perspective is that science the human invention. Another is that science is a collection of beliefs, ideas, concepts and models. That science is symbolic representation, the map and not the territory. Another perspective is that science is a shared cultural web of belief as clients About so eloquently in part one. Another perspective is that science is an epistemology, and a metaphysics, one, epistemology, and one metaphysics out of many other possible ones. And not the best. But just one out of many, in the same way that English is one language out of many, in the same way that Christianity is one religion out of many, it's not the best, it's not the only it's one out of dozens, and perhaps hundreds and perhaps 1000s of other alternatives that you have not explored. Another perspective is that science is just trial and error. If you really want to boil the method of science down to something very general and universal, you could say where it really is, is just trial and error. We try stuff, it fails, it fails, it fails, it fails, it fails, something succeeds. And we say, okay, that thing works. So we're adding it to our catalogue of what we call science. And then we try another thing, it fails, it fails, it fails, it fails, then it succeeds. And then we say, Okay, this thing seems to work, we'll add it to our compendium of knowledge. And we'll call that science. And then we'll defend that Compendium against any kind of falsehoods. But the method itself is just trial and error. Because the truth is, you don't know ahead of time, you can't possibly know ahead of time, what will and won't work because you start from a position you start life from a position of total ignorance. So really, the only way you acquire knowledge is just through trial and error. And that's what all of human history was, is we're just a collection of trial and error, building upon itself, growing and growing and growing like a mountain, like a pyramid. And we're still using that same method of trial and error, to advance the edge of science. And we always will be. Because we don't know everything, and we don't know everything, then you make a lot of error. And you didn't do a lot of trials. And you can't predict which of your trials will work and which ones won't. Another perspective on science is that it's a collection of values, principles, norms, standards and methods. And of course, all these values, principles, norms, standards and methods, they evolve over time. Another perspective is that it's a worldview. It's a mental attachment, and it's an identity. Another perspective, is that science is a perspective. And everything is a perspective. And all perspectives are partial, and finite and incomplete. And that reality is perspectival. But science is just one perspective. It's not the best, it's not the truest, it's not the only it's one out of millions of perspectives. Another perspective on science is that it's an ideology that denies that it's an ideology. Another perspective on science is that is groupthink. Another is that it's an institution of bureaucracy and a collective ego. Check out my episode, called collective ego, understanding collective ego. For more on that. Another perspective is that science is a state of consciousness. That's a very powerful perspective that many scientists aren't aware of. Another perspective is that science is empirical investigation of how experience works. Human Experience science is the investigation of human experience. That's a powerful perspective. Another perspective is that science is holistic, intuitive pattern recognition, finding useful relationships and patterns within human experience. Another very powerful perspective is that science is survival. Oh, that's a good one. Science is survival. spent a few years just contemplating that one right there. To get you started, go check out my two part series understanding survival part one, part two. Another perspective is that science is a linguistic structure, a symbolic system as we talked about earlier in this episode. Another perspective is that science is a sense making narrative activity that anchors In reality see, you have a sense of reality. And science is what grounds that without science, you wouldn't have a sense of reality, or you would need some other sense making system like religion, to give you that sense of reality. See, most scientists don't see this perspective. They don't see science this way. Another perspective is that science is a collection of conceptual distinctions. To really appreciate that, you'd have to contemplate what a conceptual distinction is. Another perspective is that science is finite, limited partial relative Subjective Truth. And the last perspective I'll give you is that science is a hallucination within Universal Mind. A dream? The universe is dreaming, science. See, you see how much material there is here? Do you see it in how many different ways you can look at science? Do you see how much more of a robust picture of science you have now compared to what most people, most layman, and even many scientists have of science. And you can come up with more perspectives, this is just getting you started. See, I want you understand the following point. Science is not merely something that academics do in a laboratory. Science, we might say there's a proto science that comes before science and proto science is something that you yourself do in your life. For example, when you lose your car keys, and you need them to get to work. So you're scrambling in the morning to find your car keys, you don't know where they are, you actually go through a scientific process, I want you to realize this, to find your car keys, you start to use some reasoning, you start to use a sort of a process of elimination, you use a process of deduction, we say like, well, maybe they're in the kitchen. No, they're not. There you go. And you check, you know, look in the kitchen drawers, no, it's not there, then oh, maybe they're in the garage, you go check the garage, maybe they're in my pockets, you check your pockets, right? This is you're doing, you're doing a form of science. Now, of course, this is very simple. It's very crude. But this is how science began. Just by individuals, learning to manipulate their reality, even a little child, when a little child is playing with toys. That little child, his mind is doing a sort of proto science. By learning how the toys work, it's like, oh, I can push this button and the cow goes, moo, I push that button, and the frog goes Ribbit or whatever. In a sense, the mind is learning how human experience works. You're recognizing various patterns. This is the foundations of science. But of course, the problem is that you can have all sorts of false beliefs. And your mind can be closed to all sorts of possibilities. You see, like when you're looking for your car keys. One of the features, you'll notice that you need to find your car keys is you need to open your mind to where your car keys could be. Because sometimes the reason you lose your car keys is because really, the car keys are located in some location that you probably have completely forgotten about. And you don't even consider, it's like, wow, the car keys couldn't possibly be there. And so you don't even you don't even think about that, that location, but they turn out to be there. And that's why it takes you so long to find them. Because your mind is like too closed. Your mind is only thinking in this like small little box. It's like, well, the car keys must only be in the usual locations. But then it's like, you remember like, Oh, of course. Last night, there was a party, and therefore the party was crazy. We were drunk and I left my car keys in some weird location that I normally don't leave them out. And that's why they will last for so long. Yeah. But that requires you to open your mind. See? And you have to be genuinely curious and willing to experiment to test stuff. The essence of science is really the exploration of your own first person phenomena. And one of the things I really want you to take away from this whole series is that stop thinking of science as just some sort of thing that other people do. I want you to take responsibility, that you are a scientist in your own life. If you are one, whether you're doing it consciously or unconsciously, and I want you to start to do it consciously, I want you to consciously explore your own experience, your own emotions. You see, most scientists would consider the exploration and the study of one's own emotions as not legitimate science. But why wouldn't it be? To understand what anger is, what sadness is, what depression is, what suffering is, what pain is, what happiness is, what excitement is what, what sexual craving is, this is all science, it's inner science. And nobody can do this science for you know, Einstein is going to come along and tell you what anger is, you have to feel the anger within you and what sources it and how it works, and how it motivates you and how it drives you, and how it corrupts your thinking, and what impact it has on your life. actualised.org What we're doing here together with all of my work, is we're doing an inner science. We're thinking deeply about all the practical aspects of human life, whether it's relationships, or your career, or how to motivate yourself. Or your health, your nutrition, or how your mind works, how your thoughts work, how your emotions work, how your psyche works, why you get angry, why you get triggered, why you get closed minded, why you get defensive, why you get offended, why you have the political beliefs you have, why you have the religious beliefs you have, why you have the scientific beliefs you have, how your worldview works, how you acquire knowledge, how you interface with reality, this, this is the most important thing that a human can study. And this is not something you can read about in a book, this is something you got to do yourself, you got to take responsibility for this science, this inner science. And I want you to start to think of it as a science. Many of the methods of science applied to this work, you have to test, you can't just believe some guru, you can't just believe me, you got to test. You got to do experiments. There is cost and risks associated with the experiment. Sometimes an experiment is dangerous. Sometimes it's costly. Sometimes it's time consuming. Sometimes it's confusing. Sometimes you're an experiment, and you're not sure what the conclusion is you got to run the experiment 1020 100 times. This is your life's work right here. You see. Now, I also promised to give you a list of practical applications of the things we've talked about here. Specifically, people have been asking me likely Okay, so what are you saying? Aside from all the theoretical stuff, what are you saying is actually wrong with modern science? Can you give us a list. So here's this list, I'm going to quickly just go through and I can't explain all of it in depth. But this is a practical list of things that modern science is wrong about. So first of all, a modern science is wrong about materialism, realism and objectivity. We've sort of already talked about that. Reality is not material. And it's not real. Science is wrong about science is also deeply wrong about Western medicine. There are many, many gross mistakes within Western medicine. Western medicine is very bad at understanding human health, how to make humans healthy, how to diagnose and solve many of their illnesses. Western medicine is enormously ignorant in the dark ages and corrupt the pharmaceutical industry, but also regular doctors, the entire medical industry is deeply, deeply unscientific and corrupt. It's not just corrupted by money, many of the things they believe are just flat out false and wrong and unscientific in the same way that doctors you know, a couple 100 years ago, would use leeches for bloodletting and so forth. And then today, we consider that to be absurd and unscientific. Well, the same thing is happening today with many Western doctors. Science is also deeply wrong about perception, the nature of what perception is, the whole field of neurosciences is deeply delusional about the nature of consciousness. And in general, the problem of consciousness is probably the single biggest problem of modern science, what they call the hard problem of consciousness. Science is deeply wrong about psychedelics deeply misunderstand. As the nature of psychedelics science is wrong about rationalism and the principle of non contradiction. Generally scientists believe that contradiction is shows you that there's some sort of misunderstanding about reality when in fact, contradiction is a is not a bug. It's a feature. Any symbolic map or model or representation of reality will by definition have contradiction within it. This is not a mistake. This is the nature of entanglement and oneness. Science is still deeply ignorant about relativity, the relativity of all facts, all science, all truths, all worldviews, all perspectives and all of reality, there is no such thing as an objective reality. Everything is absolutely relative, including all physical and material things. Science is deeply in denial about the existence of paranormal phenomena, ESP, stuff like remote viewing, astral projection, telepathic abilities, and so forth. Classic yogic cities, these things are real, they do exist, they can be developed. They can be studied scientifically, but not using materialistic methods. Science is deeply in denial about this. And this will change in the next 100 years. Science is deeply denial and misunderstands the nature of mystical experiences. Science is wrong about the nature of birth and death. And immortality. Science believes that birth and death are real objective facts, and that immortality is impossible. This is wrong. This is just simply empirically factually wrong. Birth and death are both conceptual ideas. They're not real objective things and immortality is your natural awakened state. And it is achievable by humans without any kind of technology. Science is deeply wrong about God, infinity and nothingness. Science denies that God exists because it's supposed to be Hocus Pocus, supernatural stuff, but of course, God is real, you can realize that you are God, dreaming up science. God is not a belief. God is not an ideology. God is not something that Christians came up with. It's not something that Muslims came up with. It's It's the ultimate nature of yourself when you awaken it's consciousness. God is infinite consciousness. Science doesn't understand this. Science is wrong about the Planck length, there's this idea within science that we have discovered the smallest like element of, of space, and it is the Planck length, and anything below the Planck length basically can't exist or can be anything smaller than the Planck length. This is nonsense. There is no such thing as the smallest particle or the smallest segment or quanta of, of spacetime. It's infinite space is infinitely continuous, it goes down forever, these particles go down forever, there is no end to the bottom to the mat to the micro scale of nature, there's no end and there's no end to the macro scale. Beyond the universe, it goes infinite in all directions. And you can become directly conscious of this as an empirical fact. Not a speculation or a theory. The Planck length just reveals the limitations of modern scientific modeling and thinking about consciousness. Science is wrong about the existence of spirits, beings, aliens, and so forth. These things within infinite consciousness can exist in infinite variety. There's nothing special about them. There's nothing paranormal about them, per se. It's just all consciousness. Scientists are wrong about the nature of intelligence and artificial intelligence. Science doesn't understand what intelligence is. Science does not understand that the universe is infinitely intelligent, and that all human intelligence and all AI intelligence as of computers, and so forth, that these are all deriving from slivers of infinite Universal Intelligence. Science is wrong about the nature of love. Science doesn't understand what love is. And that love is actually not just to human emotion, but fundamental to to the very structure of reality and existence and consciousness itself. This will be recognized in future centuries. Science makes many mistakes within psychology, the field of psychology, it's still in the dark ages. People like Freud, and even modern psychologists have such a poor understanding of human psychology. That's one of the things that I seek to correct with my work with actualize that org. Hopefully, you can see the depth of the psychology we talked about here is much deeper than anything that any modern academic psychologist understands. So, the field of human psychology, the thing that it really lacks it lacks is an existential component and the spiritual component. So when you strip away philosophy, and metaphysics and epistemology and spirituality away from psychology, then you get a very materialistic psychology which can't possibly explain human health, human mental health or human behavior properly. Also, psychologists don't understand, for example, mental illness, madness, Insanity, psychosis, these sorts of things. These can't be understood unless you have a deep understanding of the existential dynamics of consciousness itself. So, there's a lot of development that will happen in the next few centuries with psychology. Science misunderstands the nature of evolution, science thinks evolution occurs and is caused by random accidental mutations. This is not the case at all. Evolution is happening through a deeply deeply intelligent process, evolution occurs, but it occurs through infinite intelligence. And evolution is not just something that happens with genes through DNA. Evolution is the entire movement of the universe. So every molecule that's moving in the universe is actually part of the flow of evolution and all of it is an intelligent process, and infinitely intelligent process. Which science hasn't has no clue about yet. Science is wrong in assuming that reality can be a simulation. It can't reality is not a simulation. This is obvious and demonstrable. Once you understand what consciousness is, all simulations are occurring within consciousness. Nutrition Science is still very much in the dark ages, there's a lot of mistakes within nutrition science. Science doesn't understand what truth is. Science is in denial about the existence of absolute truth. That's a huge mistake. Science doesn't have a good understanding of what knowledge is. And science doesn't understand that all knowledge is actually impossible. Knowledge is impossible. Only through self deception is knowledge truly possible. And that's something that science has yet to understand. Science deeply misunderstands the origins of the universe, this whole Big Bang model is deeply problematic and flawed. That's not really the origin of the universe. I can't explain that further here don't have time for it. Science misunderstands the nature of duality versus oneness. Science doesn't understand that reality is one and infinite. Science doesn't understand deeply enough the entanglement problems that I've been talking about and how deep they go, science doesn't understand the nature of paradox. And what paradox actually is, which is a self reference problem that occurs due to a dualistic mind trying to analyze oneness or infinity. Science has a poor grasp of language and how language plays into science and that science itself is only possible as a language. Science is deeply wrong about all of its theories of everything, every theory of everything that every scientist has ever made is not a true Theory of Everything. It's highly finite, and it doesn't really account for everything at all, and it never could. And yet, scientists don't understand this. They fool themselves into thinking that their theories of everything are real theories of everything, when of course, they are not. Science has a lot of mistakes and errors within its methodology. Its methodology is far too conservative and far too limited. To account for all of the phenomena of nature. Science misunderstands religion, mysticism, witchcraft, Voodoo, astral projection, meditation, channeling and other sorts of what we would call spiritual technologies and methods. So that's the list. There's more, but that's the list of very practical areas in which science is wrong. Now, I want to give you a list of core questions that I'd like you to contemplate about science. So even though I've given you a lot of answers here, there are deep, deep, deep questions that you should be contemplating. So here they are. Number one, what is science? Number two, what makes science work? Number three, how can we be sure science is true? Number four, where did science come from and who invented it? Number five, what are sciences assumptions? Number six, what is science is function. What function does it serve? Number seven, what are sciences limitations and biases? Number eight? Why has science committed so many deep epistemic blunders? Historically? Number nine, in what ways is science corrupted? And number 10? What alternatives exist to science? Spend the next 10 years contemplating all these questions and generating your own conclusions. Now to start summing this up. One time during one of my awakenings, I became deeply, deeply directly conscious of just how much science understands of reality, or rather, how little and this image came to me, which is a really good metaphor for understanding the limits of science. So imagine the carpet in your house, if you have a house with carpeting, imagine that. Imagine how much carpet there is in your house. Imagine that every square foot of carpet you know, it has little hairs, little fibers that stick out, you know, hundreds of there's hundreds, maybe 1000s of hairs per square foot, and you probably got 1000s of square feet, in your whole house if you have a decent sized house. Now, this carpet, let's imagine represents the entire houses carpet represents all of the knowledge that the universe has about itself or can have about itself. Everything that could be known. Now, here's the here's the key, all of human science, as it is done. And as it will be done for the next million years, will amount to nothing more than one single hair or fiber of this carpet. That's how limited and insignificant and meek and partial and short sighted, modern science is not just today science for the next million years. If we keep doing science, we will only know one fiber of the billions of fibers that comprise the carpet of your whole house. And actually, even this metaphor, is truly an understatement. Because while your house has a finite number of square feet of carpet, the reality is, is that the universe universal capital, you infinite consciousness, because it's infinite. Now I want you to imagine the carpet of your house extending out in both directions, forever. And all of human science that humans will ever do, will amount to nothing more than one fiber, one strand on this infinite sea of carpet. Now you start to appreciate a little bit of the problems and the limits of the methodology of science. You see, when we started talking about the limits of science in the series, you might have thought that oh, yeah, there's some limits to science. Of course, any reasonable person has to admit that. But I mean, how bad could it really be. And now with this example, you start to really appreciate how bad it could be. It's very bad. It's much worse than you could possibly imagine. In fact, the situation is so bad that if humans spend the next billion years doing science, we will be no closer to understanding the nature of reality than when we were as cavemen. That's just the nature of infinity. The nature of infinity is that any finite method you use to understand infinity, will always leave you infinitely far away from understanding infinity. Pretty amazing, huh? That's the that's the real scope of the universe. Scientists have no idea of what they're dealing with. It's sort of like a fisherman. I like this analogy. It's like a fisherman that goes out to sea. And, and he hooks a really big fish and he's reeling it in, you know, he's sitting a little rowboat, and he's reeling it in. He really, he really believes he's landed this like, killer whale of a fish. And he you know, he's, he's really in for hours and hours and hours, but he doesn't realize that he's hooked the bottom of the ocean, and that actually what he's reeling in is the entire Earth. That's what the modern scientists don't understand. They think they're reeling in a fish. But actually, they've hooked the entire fucking universe. They've hooked themselves. So, given the nature of this Given the scope of the universe, shocking revolutions are coming to science soon over the next 102 100 years, science will grow by leaps and bounds. Today science will look medieval to your grandchildren and their children. your children's children will laugh at how stupid 21st century scientists were. In the same way that we laugh today at the doctors of the medieval era who used leeches and alchemy to try to cure people and actually kill them instead. Of course, science is deeply in denial about all these things. And it will be a very difficult task to convince scientists of this and really, you're not going to be able to we're gonna have to wait for many of them to die out. And for new people to be born with more open minds. And slowly we will inch our way forward the very foundations of the scientific method will expand and change. Today what is considered pseudoscience will become accepted as mainstream science science will acknowledge the validity of the paranormal, the spiritual, the mystical and the psychedelic science will finally surrender materialism and realism. Science will finally understand the true origins of religion and mysticism. Science will acknowledge that reality is infinite science will acknowledge the reality of consciousness non duality God immortality and absolute truth. Science will acknowledge the limits of analysis, measurement, quantification, logic, rationality and proof. science and spirituality will unify science and mysticism will unify and science will ultimately finally acknowledge and realize the true nature of reality as infinite love. How long it takes for science to do that depends on you depends on whether you are willing to help change science. Don't expect others to do it for you. If you don't do it, others won't do it. If your mind is closed, their mind will be closed, we have to do it together. We're in this boat together, science is done together. Science can only be as conscious and as smart and as evolved and as developed. And as open as we are, as your mind is, as our culture is as our society is. The more selfish you are, the more fearful you are, the more closed minded you are, the more egotistical you are, all of this will be reflected in your science. All of it will be reflected in your society, in your politics, in your government, in your leadership, in your companies, in your financial systems, in your econ, in your economies, in your medicine system, in your nutrition system. Because every human system is a byproduct of the human minds who invent and control and manage the systems. So in conclusion, science is not the end all be all. If you want to understand reality, you must go beyond current science. Do not expect current science to deliver the truth to you, it won't. You're gonna have to work for it. Modern science has gotten us here. But modern science is not enough to get us to the next level. That takes something new, that takes something more. Of course, science is not bad or evil. It's just extremely limited. And it's very misleading. Stop believing in science and start doing your own science. Make your life a science experiment. The greatest science is the study of yourself. And with that, I want to leave you with a few closing quotes. To sum this all up. The first of which is from Michel de Montaigne, who says, quote, I study myself more than any other subject that is my metaphysics. That is my physics and quote and then one from Werner Heisenberg, a physicist of quantum mechanics, who says, quote, the first Gulf from the glass of Natural Sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you. And quote and the last quote is from Albert Einstein who says, quote, there are only two ways is to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle. And quote. Alright, that's it for part three. Congratulations for making it this far. If you've made it this far, you're, you're in the top 5% of of my listeners and students, everybody else has dropped off by this point, and has lost interest. That means you're serious, good for you. If you're serious, then start to contemplate the things that I said, take it to the next level. This is only just the beginning. Don't believe what I said. Become conscious of it for yourself. If it's true, and if you can't become conscious of it, then it isn't true. If it isn't true for you, it isn't true. It doesn't matter what I say. Unless it's true for you. All right, stay tuned for part four, where we will be doing some question and answers and objections. If you have questions. Still, if you have objections and criticisms of what I've said here throughout these last three episodes, please post them down below in the comment section. I will read all those compiled the best ones, and try to address those in part four. All right, thanks so much. Please click that like button for me and come check out actualize that org That's my website, you will find my blog, you will find the book list with lots of books to go to take you deeper into contemplating the scientific questions. I have great books about epistemology, metaphysics, science and philosophy and spirituality and so forth. Really, really solid stuff. Check that out. You should be reading that stuff to understand the things that I say. Check out my life purpose course. COMM asked questions on the forum. I'm on the forum a lot. I answer. All reasonable, high quality questions, utilize that opportunity, while I'm still doing it. And if you'd like you can support me at patreon.com/actualized with a few donations. The last thing I want to say here is this. Why are you not more serious about exploring reality. Reality is the most incredible thing that you could explore. It's vast, it's profound. It's deep. It's miraculous. It's mysterious. It's it's incredible. Every facet, every corner of nature and reality is so interesting. And yet, people take it all for granted. Nobody's seriously exploring any of their explorations, even when they do happen are paper thin. And this is ultimately the problem with your life, your life, flax depth and profundity. And that's because you don't take it seriously. When you treat life, like like a joke. When you take it for granted, then, yeah, your life is boring and lame. And it's depressing. And it's unexciting. And it's hard to motivate yourself to wake up in the morning and to get to work and to have great relationships that have passion in your life, of course. Because you're taking life for granted, life is waiting for you to discover the miracle that it holds the mystery that it holds the infinity that it is. This is what inspires all the greatest scientists. Why does it inspire you? Why aren't you more curious? Don't underestimate the power of curiosity, the power of questioning the power of experimenting and investigating? Yes, it takes time. Yes, it takes energy. Yes. It's confusing when you first start. Yes, you have failures. It's a method of trial and error mostly with a lot of error. But do you have some better idea of what you're going to do here? What are you going to do? You're just going to you're just going to buy all the bullshit that society spoon feeds you all the ready made beliefs and ideologies and you think your life is going to go well, by doing that. You're just gonna blindly believe your professors not question anything. And you think your life is gonna go well? Well keep dreaming. Or the alternative is you could get serious you can get seriously curious, you can set your life on a trajectory of exploring reality, making groundbreaking new discoveries and helping others There's around you to do the same. Okay, it's up to you. You make the choice, I can't make the choice for you, I can only present you with some of the possibilities. And that's ultimately all that I'm doing with actualize that org is my function here is not to enlighten you. I'm not going to enlighten you. My function is just to make you aware of the possibilities that nobody else in society is making you aware of just the possibilities, you're gonna have to work your ass off to actualize those possibilities. If you find them juicy and interesting enough. My job is to present the possibilities in a way that makes you say, oh, that that sounds like a pretty cool alternative. Why am I not doing that? Why am I doing all the dumb stuff that everybody else around me is doing? Why am I not doing what Leo is doing? That's all. I'm just an example of showing you what it looks like to live a life where you're, you're really serious about pursuing some of these unconventional possibilities. And then it's your choice whether you are going to actualize that or not.